HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport #1LV"r-'-o 9-Oaq
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE N0. 5498
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT (LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE PUD).
WHEREAS, a land use application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development (PPUD) for two (2) tracts of land as hereinafter more particularly described,
located in the City of Renton, has been filed with the Department of Community and Economic
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the recommendation for approval of the PPUD
from the Hearing Examiner'after public hearing thereon as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for this PPUD agrees to the time limits for submittal of the final
plan for the Planned Urban Development pursuant to RMC 4-9-150G.1;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The PPUD pertaining to the described property in Attachment A, attached
hereto and made a part thereof as if fully set forth herein, is approved. This property includes
two separate tracts of land, located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Benson Drive South (otherwise known as Washington State Route 515) and Benson Road South,
also located south of Southeast 172"d Street.
SECTION II. The land uses of the PPUD are multi -family residential, retail, and general
office. The multi -family land use is located on the northern tract of land, which will result in a
maximum of ninety-seven (97) residential units within this Planned Urban Development. The
1
6
ORDINANCE NO. 5498 (a
retail and general office uses will be located on the southern tract of land, and will result in
eight thousand nine hundred (8,900) square feet of retail space and seventeen thousand eight
hundred (17,800) square feet of general office space.
SECTION III. The requested modifications to Renton Municipal Code, as identified in
Attachment B, attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully set forth herein, are
approved.
SECTION IV. Development of the PPUD is approved in two (2) phases; the residential
phase, to be developed on the northern tract and the retail/office phase to be developed on
the southern tract. Each phase can be developed independent of each other or concurrently,
with no restriction of the order in which they are developed. As a part of Phase I (either
residential or retail/office), the final approved stream buffer mitigation plan shall be
implemented and completed, including but not limited to the addition of the soft surface
pedestrian trail, two benches, monument sign, and center site vehicular crossing and all
frontage improvements shall be completed along all street frontages of the development site.
SECTION V. The effective date of the PPUD approval is the effective date of this
Ordinance, being thirty (30) days after publication. The date of expiration of the approval shall
be pursuant to RMC 4-9-150G,1 which will be two (2) years from the date of approval. The
Hearing Examiner may grant one (1) extension of the PPUD approval for a maximum of twelve
(12) months.
SECTION VI. The City's Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change
the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, to reflect the land use application number on the tracts of
2
ORDINANCE NO. 5498
land identified in SECTION I above and as reflected in Attachment C, attached hereto and made
a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and thirty
(30) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 16th day of _November , 2009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 16thday of November , 2009.
Approv as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 11 /20/2009 (summary)
ORD.1592:10/22/09:scr
, )P"L f=,by -
Denis Law, Mayor
3
Aftachme ORDINANCE N0. 5498
(#
SEA
0
Q
L
.o
October 15, 2009
0 150 300
Feet
1:3,200 N
H.ICEDIPlanningl G1SiGlS_pr'o*ts4
vicinity_ mapslmxdsliva09 02 t vicinity map oct09,mxd
Mo pm4viced by Gry V;Renum (cX ine City of Rem� al' 0t%
rao�fr. Vn*7molim rA wry fml. inrd.cinp Mrl nm aml�m
to icily W.Il ms er mwd-arbal4ty_ acccmpiY tnls product
SE 1
Ui
W
0
Vicinity Map
®Springbrook Ridge PUD Project Location Boundary
= Parcels
Alex Pietxl Adminismor -
IhrL•u'(iJSAtw[yrtiaNLr%iv:.mAchirma —JAMWm.Pubic3.1odmi
.jRDINANCE N0. 5498
ATTACHMENT B
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE RMC
(LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA SPRINGBROOK RIDGE PUD)
RMC #
Re uired 12er RMC
Approved Modification
RMC 4-2-12OA: Required Location
Parking for residential units shall be
To provide fifty-nine
for Parking
enclosed within the same building as
(59) parking spaces
the unit it serves.
within the residential
building in an
underground/ground
floor parking garage and
sixty-three (63) surface
parking spaces for the
multi -family building.
RMC 4-2-080A.118.a: Conditions
a. General Requirements: Subject to
Stand alone residential
Associated With Zoning Use Tables
the density limits of the
and ground floor
development standards for this zone
residential to be
and only permitted within a
permitted.
structure containing commercial
uses on the ground floor.
Commercial space must be reserved
on the ground floor at a minimum of
thirty feet (30') in depth along any
street frontage. Residential uses shall
not be located on the ground floor,
except for a residential entry feature
linking the residential portion of the
development to the street.
RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum
Compact parking spaces shall not
All other uses — not to
Number of Compact Spaces
account for more than:
exceed thirty-four
Outside of the UC-N1' and UC-N2
o All other uses -- not to exceed
percent (34%).
Zones
thirty percent (30%).
RMC 4-4-090D.1: Refuse and
Minimum Size: A minimum of one
Four hundred and three
Recyclables Multi -family
and one-half (1-1/2) square feet per
(403.00) square feet
Developments Minimum Size
dwelling unit in multi -family
Requirements
residences shall be provided for
recyclables deposit areas, except
where the development is
participating in a City -sponsored
program in which individual recycling
bins are used for curbside collection.
A minimum of three (3) square feet
0
ORDINANCE NO. 5498
ATTACHMENT B
per dwelling unit shall be provided
for refuse deposit areas. A total
minimum area of eighty (80) square
feet shall be provided for refuse and
recyclables deposit areas.
RMC 4-4-130D.2: Tree Retention
Unless exempted by critical areas,
The allowance of thirty -
and Land Clearing Regulaitons,
RMC 4-3-05005 or Shoreline Master
six (36) trees to be
Restrictions for Critical Areas —
Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090,
removed and associated
General
no tree removal, or land clearing, or
land clearing in a Class 4
ground cover management is
stream and stream
permitted:
buffer critical area for
a. On portions of property with
the construction of
protected critical habitats, per RMC
vehicular transportation
4-3-050K; streams and lakes, per
stream crossings as
RMC 4-3-050L; Shorelines of the
Permitted by RMC 4-3-
State, per RMC 4-3-090, Menton
050L.8.a, subject to.
Shoreline Master Program
mitigation identified
Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC
within the SEPA
4-3-050M; and their associated
Environmental Review.
buffers;
ORDINANCE NO. 5498
.Attachment tl lent
I
a
< j s St
SE
LUA
LU 9�hLb
cn
¢'
U
Wit
CP
'
�Residerrtial -10 DUTAC •
C
-
-
in
,k41.P.UD
a5
LU SE 173rd St
co
CD
Zoning Map Changes
October 15, 2009
®PUD Boundary Residential - 10 DU/AC
0 160 320 [::1 Parcels Residential - 14 DU/AC
Feet
1:3L , Zoning Residential - 4 DU/AC
H:TCED1Prannrnr��Gls1 N Commercial Arterial Residential - 8 DUTAC
Gls�__pfoojectslviciniry_mapsVwdsl Residential - 1 DU/AC Residential Multi -Family
1va09_024 zonlncg_map oci09.mxxd
City of
Mop produced dy Gity or Renton icl, the Gty of Renton all ripma omtnunity & onomi c Development
reeervec No werranriea at any sort, Including out not rmited Alex Pielsch, Admiuis{mlor
to accuracy, (mess or merchantnodlity, accompany this product. Mta VTTS Analysis Smices, Adrian A. Johmon, Patrick Roduin
November 16, 2009 Renton City Council Minutes Page 352
ORDINANCE #5497 Following second and final reading of the above referenced ordinance, it was
CED: Master Street Use MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE
Agreement, Zayo Bandwidth AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading.
ORDINANCE #5498
An ordinance was read approving the Springbrook Ridge Preliminary Planned
Plat: Springbrook Ridge PPUD,
Urban Development (PPUD-09-024). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY
PP, SE 172nd St & Benson Rd
ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES.
S, PPUD=099 024
CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5499
An ordinance was read adopting the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to
Comprehensive Plan: 2009
the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Maps, and Data in conjunction therewith.
Amendments
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE
AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5500 An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
Rezone: Sunset Bluff within the City of Renton (SW Sunset Blvd.) from Residential -Ten Units Per Net
Properties, R-10 to IL Acre (R-10) to Industrial Light (IL) zoning, File No. LUA-08-146. (CPA 2009-M-
03). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5501
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
Rezone: Maple Valley
within the City of Renton (Maple Valley Highway) from Residential -Four Units
Highway, R-4 to R-8
Per Net Acre (R-4) to Residential -Eight Units Per Net Acre (R-8) zoning, File No.
LUA-08-145. (CPA 2009-M-04). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5502
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
Rezone: Sunset Hills, R-4 to
within the City of Renton (NE 24th St.) from Residential -Four Units Per Net Acre
R-g
(R-4) to Residential -Eight Units Per Net Acre (R-8) zoning, File No. LUA-09-095.
(CPA 2009-M-05). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5503 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and
Planning: Title IV Standards, and Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development
(Development Regulations) Regulations), of City Code, to amend density regulations in the
COR Zone Amendments Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zone, to allow bonus -density up to 75
dwelling units per net acre. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY ZWICKER,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5504 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4, Water, and Chapter 5, Sewer, of
Utility: 2010 Piped Utility Title VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, to allow for adjustments to
Rates current utility rates. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE #5405 An ordinance was read amending Chapter 1, Garbage, of Title VIII (Health and
Utility: 2010 Solid Waste Rates Sanitation), of City Code, related to year 2010 services and utility rates for all
customer classes. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY PARKER, COUNCIL
ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL. ALL AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINESS Mayor Law thanked Council, the administration, and employees for their hard
Budget: 2010 Annual City of work during this year's budget process. He acknowledged that it has been a
Renton difficult process, it includes a number of layoffs, and the City will now be
operating with 12 percent fewer employees. He noted, however, that the City
has dedicated employees who will work hard to minimize any impacts to
citizens.
November 9, 2009
► Renton City Council Minutes Page 337
RESOLUTION #4024
A resolution was read requesting that the King County Department of Elections
Annexation: Sunset East,
call a special municipal election, to be held on February 9, 2010, and place
Referendum Petition
proposition No. 3 before the qualified electors within the Sunset East
Annexation area on the February 9, 2010 ballot. MOVED BY PARKER,
SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
RESOLUTION #4025
A resolution was read granting authority for an interfund loan to Fund 422,
Transportation: Airport
Renton Gateway Center Utilities, for 750 West Perimeter Road Utility
Building 750 Utility
Improvements. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL ADOPT
Improvement, Interfund Loan
THE RESOLUTION AS READ. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for first reading and referred to the
Council meeting of 11/16/2009 for second and final reading:
Plat: Springbrook Ridge PPUD,
An ordinance was read approving the Springbrook Ridge Preliminary Planned
PP, SE 172nd St & Benson Rd
Urban Development (PPUD-09-024). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY
S, PPUD-09-024
BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
11/16/2009. CARRIED.
Comprehensive Plan: 2009
An ordinance was read adopting the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Amendments to
Amendments
the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Maps, and Data in conjunction therewith.
MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE
FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/16/2009. CARRIED.
Rezone: Sunset Bluff
An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
Properties, R-10 to IL
within the City of Renton (SW Sunset Blvd.) from Residential -Ten Units Per Net
Acre (R-10) to Industrial Light (IL) zoning, File No. LUA-08-146. (CPA 2009-M-
03). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER THE
ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/16/2009. CARRIED.
Rezone: Maple Valley An ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
Highway, R-4 to R-8 within the City of Renton (Maple Valley Highway) from Residential -Four Units
Per Net Acre (R-4) to Residential -Eight Units Per Net Acre (R-8) zoning, File No.
LUA-08-145. (CPA 2009-M-04). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,
COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
11 16 2009. CARRIED.
Rezone: Sunset Hills, R-4 to An,ordinance was read changing the zoning classification of certain properties
R-8 within the City of Renton (NE 24th St.) from Residential -Four Units Per Net Acre
(R-4) to Residential -Eight Units Per Net Acre (R-8) zoning, File No. LUA-09-095.
(CPA 2009-M-05). MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL REFER
THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/16/2009. CARRIED.
Planning: Title IV An ordinance was read amending Chapter 2, Zoning Districts - Uses and
(Development Regulations) Standards, and Chapter 9, Permits - Specific, of Title IV (Development
COR Zone Amendments Regulations), of City Code, to amend density regulations in the
Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) zone, to allow bonus density up to 75
dwelling units per net acre. MOVED BY PARKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE,
COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON
11116/2009. CARRIED.
Utility: 2010 Piped Utility An ordinance was read amending Chapter 4, Water, and Chapter 5, Sewer, of
Rates Title VIII (Health and Sanitation), of City Code, to allow for adjustments to
current utility rates. MOVED BY ZWICKER, SECONDED BY BRIERE, COUNCIL
REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR SECOND AND FINAL READING ON 11/16/2009.
CARRIED.
November 9, 2009
Renton City Council Minutes Page 334
CAG: 09-157, 2009 Pump City Clerk reported bid opening on 10/22/2009 for CAG-09-157, 2009 Pump
Station Electrical Upgrades, Station Electrical Upgrades Project; 12 bids; engineer's estimate $150,000; and
EC Company
submitted staff recommendation to award the contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, EC Company, in the amount of $94,519.31. Council concur.
CAG: 09-173, 126th Ave SE
City Clerk reported bid opening on 11/3/2009 for CAG-09-173, 126th Ave. SE
Utility Project, Rodarte
Utility Project; 24 bids; engineer's estimate $898,975.84; and submitted staff
Construction
recommendation to award the contract to the low bidder, Rodarte
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $452,789.07. Council concur.
Annexation: Honey Creek
City Clerk reported receipt of a referendum petition filed on 10/19/2009 by
Estates, Referendum Petition
John Pavlik regarding the Honey Creek Estates Annexation and staffs
recommendation to submit the annexation measure to a vote of the people of
the area by special election on 2/9/2010. Council concur. (See page 336 for
resolution.)
Annexation: Sunset East,
City Clerk reported receipt of a referendum petition filed on 10/27/2009 by
Referendum Petition
John E. Buxton regarding the Sunset East Annexation and staffs
recommendation to submit the annexation measure to a vote of the people of
the area by special election on 2/9/2010. Council concur. (See page 337 for
resolution.)
CED: 2009 Neighborhood
Community and Economic Development Department reported submission of 14
Program Grants, Second
grant applications for.the 2009 Neighborhood Grant Program (second round),
Round
and of those recommended funding of six projects and six newsletters in the
total amount of $31,340. Refer to Community Services Committee.
Development Services:
Development Services Division recommended amending RMC 4-4-100.J.5.
A -Frame Sign Permit Annual
regarding A -Frame sign permits to allow continued use of the signs after paying
Renewal Fee Waiver
the initial permit fee and discontinuing annual renewal fees. Refer to Planning
and Development Committee.
Finance: Consolidated Fee
Finance and Information Services Department recommended approval of a
Schedule & Set 2010 Fees
consolidated fee schedule and establishment of fees for 2010. Refer to Finance
Committee.
Plat: Springbrook Ridge PPUD, Hearing Examiner recommended approval, with conditions, of the Springbrook
PP, SE 172nd St & Benson Rd Ridge Preliminary Planned Urban Development and Preliminary Plat, a mixed-
S, PPUD-09-024 use development including office, retail, and residential units located at SE
172nd St. and Benson Rd. S. (PPUD-09-024). Council concur. (See page 337 for
ordinance.)
Transportation: Smart Tote Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of a contract with
125 De-icing Machine, MySlik MySlik, Inc. in the amount of $26,280 to purchase a Smart Tote 125 De-icing
Machine to assist in keeping the Airport runway free of accumulated ice. Refer
to Transportation Aviation Committee.
CAG: 07-141, Hazen 565-Zone Utility Systems Division submitted CAG-07-141, Hazen 565-Zone Reservoir
Reservoir Construction, Construction, and requested approval of the project, final pay estimate in the
T Bailey amount of $2,190, commencement of a 60-day lien period, and release of
retained amount of $251,047.98 to T. Bailey, Inc., contractor, if all required
releases are obtained. Council concur.
MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONSENT
AGENDA AS PRESENTED. CARRIED.
C. 'OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA 1-.L
AM . �.
Submitting Data:
For Agenda of. 11/09/2009
Dept/Div/Board.. Hearing Examiner
Agenda Status
Staff Contact...... Fred J. Kaufman, ext. 6515
Consent .............. X
Public Hearing..
Subject:
Correspondence..
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No. LUA-09-024, PPUD, PP, ECF, LLA
Ordinance .............
Resolution............
Old Business........
New Business.......
Exhibits:
Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation,
Study Sessions......
Zoning Map and Vicinity Map
Information.........
Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Council Concur
Approvals:
Legal Dept.........
Finance Dept......
Other ...............
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required... N/A Transfer/Amendment.......
Amount Budgeted....... Revenue Generated.........
Total Project Budget City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
The hearing was held on August 25, 2009. The Hearing Examiner's Report and Recommendation on the
Springbrook Ridge PUD was published on September 24, 2009. The appeal period ended on October 8,
2009. No appeals were filed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Springbrook Ridge Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat as outlined in the
Examiner's Report and Recommendation and adopt the Ordinance.
Rentonnet/agnbilll bh
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUNIM- RY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
September 24, 2009
Alex Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, and Cathy Cugini
PO Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Alex Cugini,
c/o Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 9810I
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
SE 172id St. and Benson Rd S and Benson Drive
Requesting Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a
mixed -use development including office, retail and residential
uses. In addition, the applicant has requested a Lot Line
Adjustment.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner
on August 18, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 area summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:29 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.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this re uest.
• Topo aphic Survey
Site Plan
: Tree Inventory Plan
Conceptual Drainage Control Plan
T.nndscane Plan, Sheet L1
Exhibit No. 13: Landscape Plan, Sheet L3
Exhibit No. 15: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB2
Stream Crossing Culvert
"A" Floor Plan
1: Buildiniz Elevations, Sheet A103
Exhibit No. 23: Site Sections
Exhibit No. 25: Building "B" Typical Office Floor
Plan & Retail Floor Plan
21: Building Elevations, color, Sheet
A103
Exhibit No. 29: Building Elevations, color, Sheet
A107
: Lot Line
Lot Landscape Plan
. r"nnnentual Gradina Plan
• rnnnentual Utility Plan
• X nndscane Plan. Sheet L2
Exhibit No.14: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB 1
Exhibit No.16: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB3
: ima%w of Arch Culvert
"A" Floor and Roof Plans
• A,,;Minu Elevations_ Sheet A104
_Exhibit No. 24: Building "B" Site Section Parking &
Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 26: Retail Elevations, Sheet A107
Exhibit No. 28: Building Elevations, color, Sheet
A104
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner, Community and
Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The
applicant has requested a Preliminary Planned Urban Development that includes office, retail and residential uses
in addition to a lot line adjustment. The project site is comprised of two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. The site is
located in the CA zone and the Commercial Land Use designation in the Benson Hill area. The site is surrounded
on all sides by roads and is located at the intersection of Benson Drive S (State Route 515) and Benson Road, on
the north it is bordered by SE 172` d Street. The site is further surrounded by commercial, residential and multi-
family residential uses.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 3
The lot line adjustment would change the sizes of the two lots, Lot 1 would become 1.98 acres and would house
the residential building and would have a net density of 50.26 dwelling units per acre. Lot 2 would contain the
commercial building and would become 1.8 acres.
Some critical areas have been identified on the site and consist of some regulated slopes, medium coal mine
hazards and a Class 4 Stream, which runs through the center of the site. The slopes are not protected slopes.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Nan -Significance -- Mitigated with IS mitigated
measures. No appeals were filed.
The residential building would be 4-stories (46-feet high). It would contain 107,723 gross square feet with an
underground parking garage with 59 spaces and an associated surface parking lot with 63 spaces to the east of the
building.
The commercial building would contain 35, 552 gross square feet with approximately8,900 square feet of retail
and 17,800 square feet of office space. The parking garage would contain 23 parking spaces with an associated
surface parking with 36 parking spaces. There would be an additional parking lot north of the stream on the
eastern side of the site that is a joint use parking lot that has 35 spaces that can be utilized by either the office
and/or the residential development.
There are 6 separate access locations for the parking garages or surface parking. There is one enter only access
that crosses the stream into the joint use parking lot. There are three access points from SE 172'd Street, two
would be directly to the underground parking and one for the surface parking. The applicants have further
proposed a vehicular stream crossing that runs through the center of the site, which would add connectivity to the
commercial and residential. This stream crossing would be necessary for site circulation.
There is also pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site that is provided in several ways. The applicants
have proposed a self-service pedestrian trail as an amenity that would run off State Rt. 515 going south of the
residential building, along the stream and that would be partially in the stream buffer and would connect to the
bridge area on the north side of the stream and further connects to pedestrian crosswalks and pathways through the
parking lot enabling people to reach either the commercial building or the residential building. Sidewalks
throughout the site further connect to street Frontages.
There was a discussion regarding modifications that can and cannot be made under the PUD ordinance.
The proposed Springbrook Ridge PUD complies with the City of Renton Development Standards including
Chapter 4.2 zoning districts uses and standards, Chapter 4.3.100 urban design regulations with the exception of
Table A, Chapter 4.4 citywide property development standards and Chapter 4.6.060 street standards.
Vanessa then went through the modifications of the Renton Municipal Code requested by the applicant that are
listed in Table A of the Staff Report. These include the requests for 59 underground parking spaces within the
residential building and 63 surface parking spaces for the multi -family building. Rather .than a residential building
with ground floor commercial, the applicant has requested to have the residential building be a stand-alone
building, the maximum number of compact parking spaces to be increased from 30% to 34%, the refuse and
recycle area be reduced to 403.00 square feet from the required 436.5 square feet, the restrictions of critical areas
regarding the removal of trees, the applicant would be allowed to modify the number of trees, they have requested
to remove 35 trees which would be in the vicinity of the vehicular crossing.
The Modifications requested for the Design District D included permitting the front entry of the building to face
the parking areas, a primary entrance of each building would be located in a visual prominent location, connected
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPLTD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 4
to the street by sidewalks to the public sidewalk, standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection,
and utility areas would be enclosed on all sides and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence, pedestrian
overhead weather protection would be provided on commercial buildings in the form of awnings, marquees,
canopies, or building overhangs. The last item, RMC 4-3-100H.2A should be stricken from the record.
Regarding the PUD criteria, 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. Public Benefits would include the enhancement or rehabilitation of natural features on the subject
property, provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more aspects, including open
space, landscaping, and site and building design.
Under tree retention, the applicant would be required to retain 15 trees, the applicant has identified 35 trees to be
retained. The circulation proposed is above and beyond requirements. Interior paths should be made of different
material than the parking lot surface material.
The landscaping around the residential building and along NE 172d Street that the applicant has provided is
generously -sized with a minimum of 15-feet. This would provide screening and buffering for the parlang lot but
would also enhance the look of the site along the intersection of Benson Road and Benson Drive. They have
further proposed native plantings along the stream corridor and the removal of invasive weeds within that area.
The proposed plan did not include landscaping along the entire frontage of the site and that would be required.
Landscaping islands in the parking area would be between four stalls and would include trees, shrubs and
groundcover.
Site design has included the buffering area and the utilization of the existing grades of the site by using
modulation and building height and setbacks. The orientation of the buildings takes in the downtown views. The
commercial building location creates a "gateway effect". The residential building includes vertical and horizontal
modulation with further division of decks and overhangs, changes of materials and color and stepping of the roof
line. The commercial building design includes structural features that create a smaller scale and the facades are
modulated in this building with changes of materials and colors. The east side of the building steps down to
follow the grades that helps further modulate the building. Various materials have been proposed to create a
pleasant frontage. The project does comply with the PUD building standards.
Katherine Laird, 1201 Third Avenue Ste., 1680, Seattle 98101 stated that the applicant would support the
modifications listed in Table A and asked that those be approved_ They believe that the walking trail is adequate
to satisfy the entire footage required. The staff report states that there is no lighting plan, there is lighting shown
on the site plan (Ex. 5) there is a legend that shows where lighting would be place. They will provide a more
detailed lighting plan that would show the throw of the light and the candles of the light. There are also two
different height pole lights for the parking lot that have been proposed as part of the site plan.
The site really only works from a circulation perspective if that center crossing is in place. This is a difficult site
due to its triangular shape with a State highway on one side, another main arterial on another side and a residential
neighborhood to the north. It only makes sense to have a fully compatible development of the site, which the city
stressed as being important to them. It would otherwise become a residential island and a commercial island with
difficult access and does not work with the property. Mr. Wagner will give the reasons why the building was
designed with the parking underground and why all of it is not underground. They would ask that the Examiner
approve the parking as it is. The traffic consultant to the project has indicated that the DOT would only allow one
access point off Benson Drive due to the closeness to the State Rt. 515.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 5
Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Bellevue 98004 stated that on the question of the stream
crossing the parking Iot on the cast side would serve the majority of the offices, if there were to be no auto bridge
and only a pedestrian bridge, that parking lot would also be putting traffic on the residential street, that did not
seem like a wise thing to do. If that area is not developed as a parking lot it has no viable use because of all the
encumbrances that are in that area and the grade. The recognition of the trails being part of the open space can be
made to work. The grade change from Benson Road (SR 515) to the first level which is three floors below the
main level, the grade change is 16-feet, therefore making more underground parking would be very difficult..
They are trying to hit a market rate housing, most of which is all surface parking and in this neighborhood the
development patterns have been all surface parking. The hope is to address partially that 50% of the parking
would be underneath. On the recycling center, enforcement on these has created some problems within the city,
revisiting recycling center codes would be appropriate. The deck size can be accommodated.
Norm Schick, 16625 106t° Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that he had several question regarding this project. He is
concerned about the increased number of vehicles that would be along 1060'. The speed limit is not posted on that
street and would Iike to see speed bumps to slow traffic. The water along 106`h now runs toward the project. It
runs in a ditch to a culvert to 172d, water floods the street during the heavy winter rains. There are many elderly
people living on 106`h they walk a lot and don't hear as well as they should. There is a school near the site and the
parking lot to the south being used for illegal activities and then throwing the residue from that into the school
ground. The school bus runs along 172d Street which is a substandard street, paving is very thin and would break
up very easy with increased traffic. The west side of the project has become a dumping ground for abandoned
vehicles. With the landscaping along SR515 the roots of the trees could eventually cause the pavement to buckle.
There is a coal mine vent in that area and if it is just filled in, an earthquake could cause the area to settle
considerably. Finally, the property values could be lowered due to this project.
Marilyn Raglc, 16805 106d' Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that she is concerned about the traffic. She understood
that SE 172"d would be extended to the west to Benson Drive. Her concern is with the increase of traffic would
not only affect 172"d, but also 106'h which would become the quickest and easiest route to take to the new parking
lot of this development. She would also like to see speed bumps on 106d'.
Ka en Kittricl CED stated that traffic would find where it will go, speed bumps can be installed, the residents
need to request them however, they make it more difficult and the Fire Department does not like them. This is a
new area for the city and it will have to be watched and studied. There will be expansion on 172"d with foil
improvements, safety amenities would be put in like sidewalks, all roads will be maintained by the City. All
unposted roads in the City have a speed limit of 25 mph. There are trees that don't eat sidewalks and the City is
using them more often.
Katherine Laird stated that street improvements on 172"4 will enhance the pedestrian traffic and improve the road
conditions. There could be a sign at the exit of the garage that could direct people to go right only, no access to
106d'. There is no retail on the ground Moor of the apartment which should lower the daytime traffic in that area.
The coal mine vent has been studied by Icicle Creek Engineers, they have recommended a structural plug and is a
condition of approval for this project. This is going to be all apartments, not condominiums.
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 10:52 a.m
FINDINGS. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 6
1. The applicant, Alex Cugini, CIO Century Pacific, LP, filed a request for a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development (PPUD) to allow the development of a residential building and a commercial building.
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 of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
5. The subject site is located on an almost triangular -shaped parcel delimited by Benson Drive South (SR-
515) on the southwest, Benson Road South on the southeast and SE 172nd Street on the north. Two third -
party properties take up the northeast corner of the triangular block and are developed with a daycare
facility. The subject site is vacant and heavily wooded.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). It is located in the Urban Design District D
overlay area.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008.
9. The areas north of the subject site are zoned R-8 (Single Family Residential; 8 dwelling units/acre).
Northeast of the site is an R 10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units/acre) zone. An R-14 zone is located east
of the subject site and additional CA zoning is located east and south of the site.
10. The subject site is approximately 164,828 square feet or 3.78 acres. As noted, the parcel is generally
triangular in shape. The parcel has approximately 390 feet of frontage along Benson Road South,
approximately 690 feet of frontage along Benson Drive South and approximately 540 feet of frontage
along 172nd Street.
11. The subject site slopes downward toward a stream that runs generally east to west across the subject site.
High spots are located near the northeast corner of the site and near the triangle's southernmost corner.
12. The stream is a Class 4 stream. The subject site also contains coal mine hazards and steep slopes. The
applicant proposes using buffer averaging to create two usable building footprints. The applicant has two
bridges crossing the creek with one an internal combined vehicular and pedestrian bridge crossing the
creek. Buffer averaging would result in a loss of 6,756 square feet with replacement of 7,014 square feet.
The applicant will be planting enhancement vegetation at a 1:1 ratio for disturbed areas as well as 32,269
square feet of enhanced or invasive plant replacement.
13. The subject site is forested and contains a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, cottonwood and Oregon ash as
well as a mixed understory of shrubs, fir and blackberry. The subject site contains 440 trees of 6-inch or
greater caliper. Forty trees are within the proposed public right-of-way and 94 are located in critical
areas. Staff calculated that there are 306 protected trees of which the applicant proposes retaining 12.
The ERC required protection of potentially 35 trees. The remaining tree and vegetation cover would be
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 7
removed to allow development of the proposed buildings and parking and circulation aisles.
14. The subject site is comprised of two underlying lots. Lot A is .7995 acres and Lot B is 2.9844 acres. The
applicant has a Lot Line Adjustment pending which would create Proposed Lots I and 2. Proposed Lot 1
would be approximately 1.98 acres and be located in the north portion of the site. Proposed Lot 2 would
be approximately 1.80 acres of the remaining southern acreage.
15. The applicant proposes developing two buildings on the subject site. A multiple family residential
building, Building A, containing 97 units would be developed on the northeast portion of the site
generally adjacent to Benson Drive and 172nd Street. A mixed use, retail and commercial building,
Building B, containing approximately 26,700 square feet would be located in the southern portion of the
site adjacent to Benson Drive and Benson Road.
16. The multiple family building would be 4-stories over underground parking. The building would contain
107,723 gross square feet. It would be 46 feet tall. The building would contain 59 stalls in the parking
garage and 63 surface stalls located north and east of the building. Staff calculated the density at 50.26
dwelling units per acre after the lot line adjustment is approved. The building's footprint is complex
running east -west, north -south, east -west again and then south to north. This change in facade breaks up
the apparent length and bulk of the building. Coupled with those major breaks in the facade are
modulations in the major facade elements.
17. The retail -commercial building would be 3-stories. It would contain 8,900 square feet of retail space on
the ground level and 17,800 square feet of office space in the upper two stories. There would be 23
structured parking stalls and 36 surface stalls for this building.
18. Both buildings will contain modulation and articulation beyond the standards of code. There will be
horizontal and vertical design changes and decks, overhangs and varied materials and colors used to
camophlage the bulk of both buildings. Canopies will setoff the entrances of the main areas as well as the
individual retail spaces. Features have been designed to create additional shadow lines to also reduce the
apparent bulk and height of the buildings. Staff noted that while the two buildings provide different
functions, they use common materials and linked landscaping and pedestrian elements. Each building is
designed to transition or reflect the adjacent uses - north are residential uses and south are commercial
uses.
19. In addition to the parking specifically allotted to each building there would be 35 surface stalls that could
serve either the residential or commercial uses. Parking will generally be hidden behind the buildings and
not be visible on the arterial streets. The arterial streets provide less than an aesthetic entry for the
buildings and circulation is limited so that the major entrances to the buildings was designed to face the
parking areas although this arrangement was offset by formal entrances with canopies. Retail will face
the street.
20. Access to the site will be provided to the site via six locations, There would be three driveways along
172nd Street with two of those dedicated to the garage. There would be a right-inhight-out driveway
along Benson Drive just south of the creek. There would be two driveways along Benson Road South
with a right-in/right-out driveway located south of the creek and an "enter -only" driveway north of the
creek. Staff noted that the roads in the area can handle the traffic but there will be impacts on the adjacent
residential area. Frontage improvements should facilitate traffic and pedestrians, particularly children
with new sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
21. The landscaping requirements of the CA Zone require 5 percent tree retention. The applicant will attempt
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 8
to protect 35 trees if possible providing a retention rate of approximately 15 percent. In addition, the
applicant will be providing 133 new trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the buildings and the
site. Landscaping will also be provided in the parking areas. Enhanced plantings are proposed along the
north boundary of the subject site to screen the low intensity uses to the north from the apartment
building. The surface parking areas will have a minimum of 15 feet of landscape strips. Staff did
recommend additional landscaping along all of Benson Drive. Staff recommended that the final
landscaping plans show drought -tolerant plants and/or irrigation plans.
22. The applicant proposed a path along the western portion of the creek which would connect to the bridge's
pedestrian pedit. -Sidewalks would then provide the rest of the pedestrian circulation. Staff recommended
that the path be continued along the creek to Benson Road as part of the public amenities provided by this
PUD. The applicant had requested a waiver of street improvements along Benson Road (east property
line) to reduce impacts to the creek. Staff noted that the Utility Division believes sufficient area exists for
these improvements and recommended that they be installed to provide a complete pedestrian path. Staff
recommended that pedestrian paths within parking areas be separately delineated.
23. The open space for each unit appears sufficient except for some corner units and the two ground floor
units. Staff has recommended that the decks be enlarged to code dimensions for all units and that the
ground floor units similarly comply with the deck dimension requirements. The applicant has not
provided sufficient common open space. The applicant proposed approximately 2,464 square feet
whereas 4,850 square feet is required. Staff recommended that the project provide the required opened
space.
24. Stormwater will be captured, retained and then released to its natural outlet, the stream, and pre -
development rates will be maintained.
25. Sewer and water will be provided by the Soo Creek District.
26. The applicant has asked that phasing for the project be considered. The applicant has suggested that the
multiple family building would be Phase I and Phase U would entail the commercial building but has
asked that the reverse be considered, too. Staff has noted that the stream mitigation, bridge and pedestrian
amenities on the bridge and along the creek be part of Phase I no matter which element is developed
initially as they are a large part of the public benefit in adopting this PUD.
27. A PUD may not authorize uses inconsistent with those permitted by the underlying zoning but does
pemut a modification of standards in some cases. Staff has provided a table showing the requested
modifications from standard requirements. That table is reproduced here:
Table A
RE VESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE C
RMC # Re uired Per RMC Requested Modi ication
RMC 4-2-120A: Required Location for Parking for residential units shall be To provide 59 parking spaces
Parkingenclosed within the same building as the within the residential building
unit it serves. in a underground/ground floor
parking garage and 63 surface
parking spaces for the multi-
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 9
RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated
Vote 1$. ....._.. _. _____.__------- ._. _ ____._.. _ ___._ ._.._
' Stand alone residential and
With Zoning Use Tables
a. General Requirements: Subject to the
ground floor residential to be
density limits of the development
permitted.
standards for this zone and only permitted
within a structure containing commercial
uses on the ground floor. Commercial
space must be reserved on the ground
floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30) in
depth along any street frontage.
Residential uses shall not be located on
the ground floor, except for a residential
entry feature linking the residential
portion of the development to the street.
RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum
Compact parking spaces shall not account
All other uses — not to exceed
Number of Compact Spaces Outside of
for more than:
34 percent.
the UC-NI and UC-N2 Zones
i All other uses -- not to exceed thirty
percent 30% .
RMC 44-090D.1: Refuse and
Minimum Size: A minimum of one and
403.00 square feet
Recyclables Multi -family Developments
one-half (1-1/2) square feet per dwelling
Minimum Size Requirements
unit in multi -family residences shall be
provided for recyclables deposit areas,
except where the development is
participating in a City -sponsored program
in which individual recycling bins are
used for curbside collection. A minimum
of three (3) square feet per dwelling unit
shall be provided for refuse deposit areas.
A total minimum area of eighty (80)
square feet shall be provided for refuse
and recyclables deposit areas.
Comment. For this development, the
minimum size required would be 436.50
s uare eet.
RMC 44-130D.2 Restrictions for
Unless exempted by critical areas, RMC
The allowance of 36 trees to be
Critical Areas — General
4-3-05005 or Shoreline Master Program
removed and associated land
Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree
clearing in a Class 4 stream and
removal, or Iand clearing, or ground cover
stream buffer critical area for
management is permitted:
the construction of vehicular
a. On portions of property with protected
transportation stream crossings
critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K;
as permitted by RMC 4-3-
streams and lakes, per RMC 4-3-050L;
050L.8.a subject to mitigation
Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090,
identified within the SEPA
Renton Shoreline Master Program
Environmental Review.
Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-
050M; and their associated buffers;
Design District `DI Reauested Modifications
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 10
RMC 4-3-100E.2.a.ii
The front entry of a building shall not be
oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a
Front entry of buildings would
be permitted to front parking
public or private street or landscaped
areas•
pedestrian-onl court -yard
RMC 4-3-100E:3.a.i
A primary entrance of each building shall
A primary entrance of each
building shall be located in a
be located on the facade facing a street,
shall be prominent, visible from the street,
visual prominent location,
connected by a walkway to the public
connected to the street by
sidewalk, and include human -scale
sidewalks to the public
elements.
sidewalk, and include human -
scale elements.
RMC 4-3-100E.5.a.iii
In addition to standard enclosure
requirements, garbage, recycling
In addition to standard
enclosure requirements,
collection, and utility areas shall be
garbage, recycling collection,
enclosed on all sides, including the roof
and utility areas shall be
and screened around their perimeter by a
enclosed on all sides, and
wall or fence and have self -closing doors
screened around their perimeter
by a wall or fence and have
self -closing doors
RMC 4-3-100G.3.b.i
Provide pedestrian overhead weather
Provide pedestrian overhead
protection in the form of awnings,
weather protection on
marquees, canopies, or building
commercial buildings in the
overhangs. These elements shall be a
form of awnings, marquees,
minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2')
canopies, or building
wide along at least seventy five percent
overhangs. These elements shall
(75%) of the length of the building facade,
be a minimum of four and one -
a maximum height of fifteen feet (15')
half feet (4-1/2') wide along at
above the ground elevation, and no lower
least seventy five percent (75%)
than eight feet (8') above ground level.
of the length of the building
facade, a maximum height of
fifteen feet (15') above the
ground elevation, and no lower
than eight feet (8) above
around level.
RMC 4-3-100H.2.d
1,000 square foot Public Plaza at the
intersection of Benson Drive South and
590 square foot Public Plaza at
the intersection of Benson
108'h Avenue SE, with a minimum
Drive South and 108`b Avenue
dimension of 20-feet on one side abutting
SE, with a minimum dimension
the sidewalk.
of 20-feet on one side abutting
the sidewalk- That may be
located just north of the
intersection to accommodate for
existing topographical contrast
at the subs ect intersection.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 11
CONCLUSIONS:
Planned Urban Development (PUD)
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 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 3092; 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
iii. 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:
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.
gpringbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 12
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.
Provision of a system of walkways that tie residential areas to recrearional areas,
transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
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 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 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:
1. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and maybe
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 1. 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 stormwater 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.
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 13
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.
i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more
dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area
equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit The common space area shall be aggregated to
provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of
common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the 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.
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:
L 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
Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building.
ii. 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 Ieast three (3) feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per
sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space.
The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space and maybe
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
Springbrook Ridge PUS
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 14
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.
iv. 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 at 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 of
at 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 (IW) 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 (S').
3, Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the 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 of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one
year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a
period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device
for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract
with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and
kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the
Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: all common facilities, including but
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits,
not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by
the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/BuildinglPublic Works Administrator or his/her
designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060,
except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a planned
urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and
future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security
instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the
time of such security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of
improvements is attributable to each phase of a planned urban development.
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 15
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)
2. It appears that some background on a PUD (Planned Urban Development) is necessary. The fact is that a
PUD is kind of a compact or contract between the property's owner or developer and the City. The City
modifies or relaxes its normal standards such as lot size or setbacks or street dimensions and the
developer agrees to provide enhanced development and, it must be emphasized "AND" public benefit.
The City's Critical Areas ordinances and complementary regulations already protect the natural features
on this site. So the question is whether the proposed development, two separate buildings with substantial
and interesting design features as well as the proposed trail, provide sufficient public benefit.
The buildings are well -designed and provide more than the required modulating elements. There will be
an interplay of vertical and horizontal elements as well as the use of a variety of materials and colors. All
of these combined architectural elements will soften the appearance of the building and provide the
viewer with buildings with less apparent bulk as well as visual interest. There will be decks on the
residential building and overhangs and canopies on both buildings. The rooflines will modulate and the
facades step inward or change direction. Landscaping all around the project area and in the interior will
provide visual relief The one intrusive element is the applicant's proposed bridge over the creek in the
interior of the site. While the applicant and staff suggested this enhances the project, clearly, it creates
tradeoffs including the additional intrusion into the creek and its buffer area. It clearly enhances internal
circulation on the site but is it necessary for the two buildings to be tied together by a vehicular crossing
of a creek? The two buildings serve two completely different functions, one residential and the other
retail and office. While the retail offerings might appeal to the residents of the complex, a pedestrian
bridge, a much smaller, less intrusive crossing, could tie those functions together. It appears that the main
selling point of this vehicular bridge is to serve automotive interests and allow parkers to park either north
or south of the creek for access to the office building. It appears staff believes this is an appropriate. And
it might be given the nature of surrounding roads and the limited right-inhight-out limitations on the
driveways serving this site. At the same time, limitations exist for most uses along Benson since free left
turn movements are restricted as they are in other areas of the City such as Rainier. For this tradeoff the
applicant definitely needs to create and welcome the public on trails along the creek throughout the site.
The pedestrian connections, delineations and trail extensions recommended by staff are necessary for this
PUD to provide the necessary public benefit.
4. In most other particulars, as noted, the proposal is well -designed. It takes full advantage of the site's
Iocation and topography to provide an enhanced layout for the two buildings. They are well -separated
providing light and air to both buildings. Views from the site will be enhanced although with the sacrifice
of the dense woods now on the site. The site is zoned for commercial uses but confining the commercial
uses to the southern half of the site reduces impacts on the single family homes north of the site.
Commercial uses could generate a different level of traffic in the evening than residential uses in Building
A which will face those single family uses. The dedication of Building A to residential uses makes sense
to provide a transition to the more intense uses along Benson Drive. At the same time, the new driveways
along 172nd will clearly create new impacts that the current, forested site does not create. Besides traffic,
the new population will increase the general hubbub. These impacts were envisioned when the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were established for this site and area. The new sidewalks and walking
trails will also provide neighbors with safer walking opportunities.
5. The proposed modifications requested for this PUD as denoted by Table A seem appropriate given the
constraints of the subject site. While it appears that the applicant could probably have achieved many of
its objectives and still met code requirements, the site does contain a creek and heavily trafficked
roadways on two sides of this triangular site. The creek, while not of the highest caliber, does cut across
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 16
the site making for challenging development limitations but also an amenity when fully respected. The
buffer averaging and bridge incursion is being offset with appropriate additions to the creek buffer and
vegetation enhancements. Landscaping will be generously provided along the perimeter of the site and in
the interior. Parking areas will be screened. The buildings contain more than ample architectural
detailing.
6. The applicant has requested that the project be permitted to be phased. While the applicant suggests that
the residential component would probably be Phase I, the applicant desires to maintain flexibility. In any
event, phasing is appropriate as long as the creek enhancements, internal bridge, trail, landscaping
elements and all frontage improvements are completed with whichever component is Phase I. Frontage
improvements along all roads is an important element whether the residential or commercial component
becomes Phase I so that neighboring residents can walk to the commercial aspect of this proposal or
residents of this complex can circulate to the greater Benson neighborhood and as part of the overall
public benefit of developing this property as a PUD as opposed to just meeting CA standards..
7. In summary, the proposed project appears reasonably well -designed and provides adequate public benefit
RECOMMENDATION:
The Springbrook Preliminary Planned Urban Development should be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be completed and recorded with King County prior to residential
building permit approval.
2. The applicant shall extend the proposed soft surface pedestrian path from the vehicular crossing
in the center of the site to nun along the south side of the stream and connect to Benson Road
South, an updated site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval prior to Final PUD approval.
I All pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material
or texture from adjacent paving materials. An updated site plan depicting proposed materials or
texture for pedestrian pathways through parking areas shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval
4. A detailed final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval that indicates landscaping enhancement along the
entire frontage of Benson Drive South, with the exception of the portion within the stream buffer
area associated with the Class 4 stream on the subject site.
5. The applicant shall submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval, that indicates either 100 percent
drought tolerant plantings or provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan.
6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting
in addition to building and landscaping fighting if proposed.
7. Prior to building permit approval, for the commercial structure, the applicant shall provide a
refuse and recycling screening detail to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval.
Springbrook Ridge PUD 0 t
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 17
8. The applicant shall provide to the Current Planning Project Manager a revised parking plan that
indicates 4 ADA parking spaces for the commercial development prior to Final PUD approval.
9. When the first phase of Springbrook Ridge PUD is to be constructed (either the residential or
commercial building), the final approved stream buffer mitigation plan shall be implemented and
completed, including but not limited to the addition of the soft surface pedestrian trial, two
benches, monument sign, and center site vehicular crossing. The applicant shall complete all
frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of Phase I development.
10. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and/or multi -family building plans to the Current
PIanning Project Manager that shows compliance with the 4,850 square feet of common open
space required for the PUD development, prior to Final PUD approval.
11. The decks proposed on the multi -family building, that do not comply with the 5-foot minimum
dimension, shall be redesigned to provide no dimension less then 5-feet. The applicant shall
submit new floor plans for the multi -family building showing compliance with the 5-foot
minimum dimension for private open space to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
Final PUD approval.
12. The applicant shall be required to establish a joint property owners' association for the
development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not
limited to the soft surface trail within the stream buffer and the ,shared parking lot, within the
PUD prior to Final PUD approval.
13. The applicant shall complete all frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of
Phase I development.
ORDERED THIS 24`h day of September 2009.
FRED J., KAWdAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED TMS24th day of September 2009 to the parties of record:
Vanessa Dolbee Kayren Kittrick Jerry Miller
Development Services Development Services PO Box 686
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
Jerry Miller
P.O. Box 686
Renton, WA 98057
Jerry & Ana Miller
10622 SE 172`d St.
Renton, WA 98055
Norman Schick
16625 106t` Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98055
Katherine Laird John Murphy Marilyn Ragle
Century Pacific, LP 4314 148" St. 16805 —106`h Ave. SE
1201 Third Ave., Ste. 1680 Bothell, WA 98012 Renton, WA 98055
Seattle, WA 98101
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 18
George & Frances Subic
P.O. Box 89
Renton, WA 98057-0089
Crissa Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Alex & Norma Cugini
P_0. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Cathy Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 24`h day of September 2009 to the following:
Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Mayor Denis Law Dave Pargas, Fire
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Utilities Division
Jennifer Henning, Development Services Neil Watts, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writiniz on or before 5.00 p.m. October $ 2009. 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 fled in writing on or before 5:00 .m. October 22009.
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 roccssing 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.
Afifiachmen
October 15, 2009 Vicinity � V+ a p
0 150 300Z\ ®springbrook Ridge PUD Project Location Boundary
Fee#
"1:3,200 = Parcels
H:10ED4PiannjngiGISfGtS_projectsl
vicinfty_mep5lmxdSVtf809_024 vicinity map oct09.mxd
Map producaa by City of Renton fay, the City of Renton allrights
reserved. No warranties of any sort, incwdrng but not fimhad
to acwtacy, Nrbss or marchsru*ility, accompany this product
City of �, o
,oiiununity"& conomtc` Develop' ent
Alex Pictsch, Administrator
DoWGIS Analysis Services, Adrian A. Johnson, PaErick Roduin
Attachment C
SE �'l
za too ,a` i,Sr:�p41
r''a,3e 4!'°tr�l€pJ
St
J
'� •j'a:6y ,l��?°��i#�-�?,;. r; 3;,'''a+�''i.. �"�"•,�'�?`'f.� js'd,,is . �.
r i rj A- as iO Y C yt7e6 1
N
1
EA
as Bip.yf
y x "ah M
•fi'.°,..
�,,
'St'ui ,.Rj's.A`i�::'a,!'�'' —Nw5L #d�;,ts'o; 'dd.al.v.., .,�::ti.,.a, i i",
N
sidential -10 DUTAC<<.„'� �,i `lv ,'..: :,
!'a'
.Ir;`,
'°Mi9�4:��'
`
� 8 3'i€'4 a:};ir�'?a• MIT;I, "(ei'82'�9'!
I
if
•5�,�d
¢00`.LC�Y. ��,�Is�4€°,' i�i��d��S�i�`j.;y,t5
z no St
k
`k••1'€„;dF'4'11F�s�'C��i..5�'i:�`f'cI'i
SE 173rd St
Q
f•
' ,fir �,r
�.w1' $°pi,a:
..
. Ja !
V11i
051�:.N 1 �
ri
e
.S
` IyiE,`.
..
Yp,,*iii
�§:•F�t«f�
4ftr�; F;`}'.f6
aFN
t
�fra
Zoning Map Changes
October 15, 2009 PUD Boundary Residential - 10 DUTAC
0 160 320 Parcels M Residential - 14 DUTAC
Feet
Zoning 1 Residential - 4 DUTAC
1:3,20D
Commercial Arterial Residential - 8 DU/AC
N;10EU V�IlanninglGls1
GIs projects4vicinidy_mapslmxdsl w Residential - 1 DUTAC Residential Multi -Family
Iua09 014_zoning map oct09.mxd
wan
City of Y
Map praduud by cry of Renlao {u7, me city m Ranion ar riohls oIl1tI]llillty COI1om, C D ev lopmen
reserved. No rmrmndes of any sort, including but not Wmled Alex Pletseh, Administrator
to a me y, 6mess ar mechamabikV. aceompany this prodact- Data/GIS Analysis Services, Adr = A. Johnson, Patrick Roduin
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF " RENTON, WASHINGTON, APPROVING A
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT (LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE PUD).
WHEREAS, a land use application for approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development (PPUD) for two (2) tracts of land as hereinafter more particularly described,
located in the City of Renton, has been filed with the Department of Community and Economic
Development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the recommendation for approval of the PPUD
from the Hearing Examiner after public hearing thereon as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the applicant for this PPUD agrees to the time limits for submittal of the final
plan for the Planned Urban Development pursuant to RMC 4-9-150G.1;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The PPUD pertaining to the described property in Attachment A. attached
hereto and made a part thereof as if fully set forth herein, is approved. This property includes
two separate tracts of land, located in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Benson Drive South (otherwise known as Washington State Route 515) and Benson Road South,
also located south of Southeast 172"d Street.
SECTION IL The land uses of the PPUD are multi -family residential, retail, and general
office. The multi -family land use is located on the northern tract of land, which will result in a
maximum of ninety-seven (97) residential units within this Planned Urban Development. The
1
ORDINANCE NO.
retail and general office uses will be located on the southern tract of land, and will result in
eight thousand nine hundred (8,900) square feet of retail space and seventeen thousand eight
hundred (17,800) square feet of general office space.
SECTION III. The requested modifications to Renton Municipal Code, as identified in
Attachment B, attached hereto and made a part thereof as if fully set forth herein, are
approved.
SECTION IV. Development of the PPUD is approved in two (2) phases; the residential
phase, to be developed on the northern tract and the retail/office phase to be developed on
the southern tract. Each phase can be developed independent of each other or concurrently,
with no restriction of the order in which they are developed. As a part of Phase I (either
residential or retail/office), the final approved stream buffer mitigation plan shall be
implemented and completed, including but not limited to the addition of the soft surface
pedestrian trail, two benches, monument sign, and center site vehicular crossing and all
frontage improvements shall be completed along all street frontages of the development site.
SECTION V. The effective date of the PPUD approval is the effective date of this
Ordinance, being thirty (30) days after publication. The date of expiration of the approval shall
be pursuant to RMC 4-9-150G.1 which will be two (2) years from the date of approval. The
Hearing Examiner may grant one (1) extension of the PPUD approval for a maximum of twelve
(12) months.
SECTION VI. The City's Planning Division is hereby authorized and directed to change
the maps of the Zoning Ordinance, to reflect the land use application number on the tracts of
2
ORDINANCE NO.
land identified in SECTION I above and as reflected in Attachment C, attached hereto and made
a part hereof as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION VII. This ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval and thirty
(30) days after publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of 12009.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2009.
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1592:10/22/09:scr
Denis Law, Mayor
3
Attachment A
October 15, 2009
0 150 300
Feet
1:3,200 A 1
N.'4CEr71Pianningl G)StG15�ro1ectsl
vicinity mapslmxdsVaa09 024 viciniry_map oct09.mxd
k4X prodnxd tq CV d Revton (0. tia Gtq of Rerun al i"
remNP0. Nns mrdimi of nrp art, irei.i:inphN nr:CW
Vicinity. Map
®Springbrook Ridge PUD Project Location Boundary
0 Parcels
City of
i
,, V
,,,6m nuntL;.,
& Eeoridmic Ddvelo ment.
ty P
Alex Pietvah„kdminWnlor
13Law iIS Amlysis SaTtwmhe6it=/L k4 nxnti 1 lbiLk Rudum
*ORDINANCE NO.
ATTACHMENT B
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE RMC
(LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LIA SPRINGBROOK RIDGE PUD)
RMC #
Required per RMC
Approved Modification
RMC 4-2-12OA: Required Location
Parking for residential units shall be
To provide fifty-nine
for Parking
enclosed within the same building as
(59) parking spaces
the unit it serves.
within the residential
building in an
underground/ground
floor parking garage and
sixty-three (63) surface
parking spaces for the
multi -family building.
RMC 4-2-080A.118.a: Conditions
a. General Requirements: Subject to
Stand alone residential
Associated With Zoning Use Tables
the density limits of the
and ground floor
development standards for this zone
residential to be
and only permitted within a
permitted.
structure containing commercial
uses on the ground floor.
Commercial space must be reserved
on the ground floor at a minimum of
thirty feet (30') in depth along any
street frontage. Residential uses shall
not be located on the ground floor,
except for a residential entry feature
linking the residential portion of the
development to the street.
RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum
Compact parking spaces shall not
All other uses — not to
Number of Compact Spaces
account for more than:
exceed thirty-four
Outside of the UC-N1 and UC-N2
o All other uses — not to exceed
percent (34%).
Zones
thirty percent (30%).
RMC 4-4-090D.1: Refuse and
Minimum Size: A minimum of one
Four hundred and three
Recyclables Multi -family
and one-half (1-1/2) square feet per
(403.00) square feet
Developments Minimum Size
dwelling unit in multi -family
Requirements
residences shall be provided for
recyclables deposit areas, except
where the development is
participating in a City -sponsored
program in which individual recycling
bins are used for curbside collection.
A minimum of three (3) square feet
ORDINANCE NO.
ATTACHMENT B
per dwelling unit shall be provided
for refuse deposit areas. A total
minimum area of eighty (80) square
feet shall be provided for refuse and
recyclables deposit areas.
RMC 4-4-130D.2: Tree Retention
Unless exempted by critical areas,
The allowance of thirty -
and Land Clearing Regulaitons,
RMC 4-3-05005 or Shoreline Master
six (36) trees to be
Restrictions for Critical Areas —
Program Regulations, RMC 4-3-090,
removed and associated
General
no tree removal, or land clearing, or
land clearing in a Class 4
ground cover management is
stream and stream
permitted:
buffer critical area for
a. On portions of property with
the construction of
protected critical habitats, per RMC
vehicular transportation
4-3-050K; streams and lakes, per
stream crossings as
RMC 4-3-050L; Shorelines of the
Permitted by RMC 4-3-
State, per RMC 4-3-090, Renton
050L.8.a, subject to .
Shoreline Master Program
mitigation identified
Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC
within the SEPA
4-3-050M; and their associated
Environmental Review.
buffers;
SEA
9 ..l
CO
b
U
R1
k
St
101
Ir
2i.,-;Residential - i0 DU/AC
I , N <! xnY-' V w•.�i •'y�j. i1"''��^•'-- ::��" ' t- - h� �` r,�ii . v�' "y.
:V.s7
LUAi]9-024, PUD
i,
Odra, �a5
�'C", LU
CO
CO
~�'~ ( _•�� _ ice' , {� iY'
Datober15,2009 Zoning Map Changes
320 ® PUD Boundary Residential -10 DU/AC
160Feet 0 Parcels F=` Residential -14 DU/AC
1:3 200 Zoning Residential - 4 DU/AC
H.'10EDV'fanninglGfS1 N Commercial Arterial Residential - 8 DU/AC
GIS_pr24—zonin nffy_r _octO9.inx Residential - 1 DU/AC Residential Mufti-Famii hraD9 024 zoning rnan octD9.rttxd y
City of
t.i
Map praduaed 6y Cky demm Rn jck ma CNy al Rem as riphq VUnity &Economic Development
,e Vd, No w nbea or my sort, includmp but not Wketl
Alcz Pielsch,Aclminis(r<11or
to accuracy, alnan w _mtwr. tdKy, nccompany as product DOMMS Analysis Scn'i=.% Adtiana A. 3d inson, Patrick Roduin
Denis Law City 0I Y
o
Mayor . 1
® U a `A
+
O/Rl
Department of Community & Economic Development
October 14, 2009
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Springbrook Ridge PUD
LUA09-024, ECF, V-H, PPUD, LLA
Dear Ms. Laird:
The City of Renton has completed its review of the second submittal for the proposed lot
line adjustment. The following changes will be necessary in order for the City to approve
your proposal:
1. "See attached memorandum from Sonja J. Fesser, Property Services"
Once the changes, as noted in the attached memo, have been made; please submit two
copies of the revised lot line adjustment to me at the sixth floor counter of City Hall. The
revised plans will be routed for final review and you will be notified when it is
appropriate to submit the final mylars. If you have any questions regarding your
application or the changes requested above, please contact me at (425) 430-7314.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Assoicate Planner
Attachments
cc: Alex Cugini, Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, Cathy Cugini / Owner(s)
Party(ies) of Record
File
i� —
1 Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 o rentonwa.gov
ti
I'
City or
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
M E M Q R A M D U M
City of
Rent
Piann►ng Division -
,It
DATE: October 6, 2009 '4
TO: Vanessa Dolbee
FROM: Sonja J. Fesser
SUBJECT: Springbrook Ridge PUD LLA, LUD-09-024-LLA
Format and Legal Description Review
Bob Mac Onie,and I have reviewed the above referenced lot line adjustment submittal
and have the following comments:
Comments for the Applicant:
The type size used for the bearings and dimension along 1081h Ave SE (Benson Rd), on
Sheet 2 of 2, does not appear to conform to WAC 332-130-050 (B) (d) (iii).
Please note that it is the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic
Development that needs to be noted in the City of Renton approval block (not the
Department of Public Works). The title of the official signing this document is correct as
shown.
Cite the authoritative source for the State of Washington stationing as well as the right
of way widths (DOT Right of Way Plan). The County's Assessor's map is not a legal
document for the purposes of professional land surveying. If the stamping surveyor has
not reviewed each of the recorded documents shown on the survey as evidenced by the
inclusion of the recording numbers copied from the assessor's map, they should be
removed. In at least one case
The surveyor needs to review the requirements as stated in RCW 58.20'Washington
Coordinate System' before showing coordinates on a record of survey. WCCS
coordinates may be of some value to the surveyor in the execution and preparation of a
survey but have no legal standing unless verified using appropriate means, do you really
want to stamp coordinates of an unknown origin.
h:\file sys\Ind - land subdivision & surveying records\lnd-30 - lot fine adjustments\0349\rv091002.doc
Page 2 of 2
October 6, 2009
The type size for the City of Renton land record number (upper left-hand corner of both
drawing sheets) should be smaller than that used for the land use action number.
Note the two new addresses on the lot line adjustment submittal. The city will provide
said addresses as soon as possible.
h:\file sys\Ind - land subdivision & surveying records\Ind-30 - lot line adjustments\0349\rv091002.doc
In
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY B o error
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Q�O `
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 2, 2009
TO: Sonja Fesser, Property Services
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, CED Planning, x7314
SUBJECT: Springbrook Ridge PUD, Lot Line Adjustment, File No. LUA09-
024, LLA
Attached is the most recent version of the above -referenced lot line adjustment.
if all Property Services concerns have been addressed and you are now able to
recommend recording of the mylar, please initial this memo below and return to me as
soon as possible.
However, if you have outstanding concerns or require additional information in order to
recommend recording, please let me know. Thank you.
Property Services approval:
cc: Yellow File
Robert T. Mac Onie, Jr. PLS Date
Sonja J. Fesser Date
LLA Property Services Approval Memo 09-024
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY B oo""°f `
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �0
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 2, 2009
TO: File No. LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA Springbrook Ridge
FROM: Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Common Space Calculations
The following information was discussed at, and is in the recorded record for the Public Hearing
on September 1, 2009. Because the following specific information is not included within the
written minutes for the Public Hearing; this memorandum has been created to clarify what
portions of the Springbrook Ridge PUD can be counted towards the "Common Open Space
Standard" for the "Residential Portions" of the development (RMC 4-9-150E1.) and to provide a
written record of this specific issue.
RMC 4-9-150E1. states that "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". Included within the list of elements that could count towards common space is
"pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street
system".
The proposed 97-unit multi -family development would require 4,850 square feet of common
open space. As proposed, there is a children's play area and a "commons residential amenity
area" that could be utilized as an exercise area or game room. These two areas total 2,464
square feet, which is less then the required 4,850 square feet. A condition of approval placed
on the application via the Hearing Examiner's recommendation to City Council requires that the
applicant provide an updated site plan and/or building plan to the Current Planning Project
Manager that shows compliance with the 4,850 square feet of common open space required
for the Planed Urban Development (PUD) development, prior to Final PUD approval.
The proposed Preliminary PUD includes a pedestrian corridor for passive recreation along the
stream that runs through the site, the square footage of the path was not provided with the
application materials. Furthermore, an additional condition of approval was placed on the
PPUD that requires this trail to extend to Benson Road. The required extension would add
additional square footage to the already proposed trail. Once this trail is designed to connect
to Benson Road, the square footage of the trail can count towards the common space
requirement for the residential development, per the aforementioned standard in Renton
Municipal Code.
cc: Chip Vincent, Planning Director
Katherine Laird / Project Contact
Alex Cugini, Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, Cathy Cugini / Owner(s)
File
h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\09-024.vanessa\memo to file 10-2-09.doc
Denis Law
Mayor
e
Department of Community & Economic Development
September 22, 2009
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: "Off Hold"and Refund Notice
Springbrook Ridge PPUD / LUA09-024, ECF, V-H, PPUD, LLA
Dear Ms. Laird:
The subject project was placed on hold on June-26, 2009 and was taken off hold on Friday,
August 28, 2009, prior to the Public Hearing that was scheduled on September 1, 2009.. At this
time, the subject project remains off hold.
Furthermore, City Staff determined that the requested variance was not applicable to the
subject project, because Aree removal within a stream buffer could be dealt with through the
Planned Urban Development process. Therefore, the applicant will be reimbursed for the cost
of the Variance application; $250.00 will be refunded. This request has been sent to the City's
Finance Department and a check will be issued to the applicant in the near future (refund
receipt enclosed).
Additionally, this'letter is a reminder that the requested changes for the Lot Line Adjustment
(see letter dated April 14, 2009) have not been received. If these materials are not received by
October 22, 2009, the subject project will be placed back "On Hold" until receipt of the
requested materials.
At this time the Hearing Examiner has not made an official decision on the subject PPUD, once a
decision has been made you will be notified. If you have any questions, please contact me at
(425) 430=7314.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Dolbee
Associate Planner
Enclosure: Refund receipt
cc: Alex Cugini, Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, Cathy Cugini / owner(s)
Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way o Renton, Washington 98057 o rentonwa.gov
J
Check RequF•-,t for Non Vendor Refund or Reimbursement
This form is used onto, -,r one time vendors. Please contact AL .unts Payable if you have
any questions regarding one time vendors.
Check will be included in the next scheduled A/P check run and mailed or released after Council approval.
Check Request Info: Date of request: w4�oq - QZq
a /zl /()Cj
Requestor's name: Requestor's department/division: Requestor's ext. #:
Uane"%CL allbec, cep l P1GLANh
Payable to:
A lex Ckxjni ,
Mail address for check: ,
C,/O L' efrvky Vac, i1GLP
12Dt - V%ir6 Vf-1. Sui k. 14D
St ttu I w& i&tol
Check amount: Account number(s) to charge: Amount per account #:
s 2sd . a o %5oo . ays. �3 (. no. ootiQ �'2 50.0 0
Reason for refund or reimbursement:
�cwiaaca- nod needed
Check handling request:
Qe-Lyn -fo uma,&x -�Y MoWr PL-ac e.
Approval signature:
R�questor's Department Administrator,
Division Director or designee:
Signature: YA4r- �"-N�
t name ofsigner on above
Date:
`The person approving this check request must be an authorized signer.
Q:DATA_CenteMor Tinante52007_Check Request for Nan Vndor Refund or Reimbursement (print and fill in) clot Print and Pill In Form. July 2007
Printed: 09-21-2009
Payment Made:
CITY OF RENTON
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Land Use Actions
RECEIPT
Permit#: LUA09-024
09/21 /2009 02:00 PM
Total Payment:-250.00
Current Payment Made to the Following Items:
Receipt Number: R0903989
Payee: REFUND FOR ALEX CUGUNI JR
Trans Account Code Description Amount
------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees-250.00
Payments made for this receipt
Trans Method Description Amount
---------- -------- --------------------------- ---------------
Payment REFUND ALEX CUG-250.00
RD Pmts Re -Dist .00
Account Balances
Trans Account Code Description Balance Due
3021 303.000.00.345.85 Park Mitigation Fee
5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees
5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers
5008 000.345.81.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat
5009 000.345,81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees
5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review
5011 000.345.61.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat
5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat
5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD
5014 000.345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees
5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment
5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks
5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone
5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt
5019 000.345.81.00.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev
5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval
5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence
5022 000-345.81-00.0019 Variance Fees
5024 000.345.81.00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee
5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend
5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies
5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps (Taxable)
5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954
5955 000.05,519.90.42.1 Postage
5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax
---------------
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
_00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Remaining Balance Due: $0.00
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
County of King )
ss.
Julia Medzegian being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states:
That on the 241h day of September 2009, affiant deposited via the United States Mail 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.
Signature: 1
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this `V day of Sz7 , 2009.
A.
N'r
IN
%-�9
Q�
WA5
y Public in and for the State of Washington
ing at 4:11 {�,�_ , therein.
Application, Petition or Case No.: Springbrook Ridge PUD
LUA 09-024, PPUD, V-H, ECF, LLA
The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record.
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
September 24, 2009
Alex Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, and Cathy Cugini
PO Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Alex Cugini,
c/o Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
SE 172"d St. and Benson Rd S and Benson Drive
Requesting Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a
mixed -use development including office, retail and residential
uses. In addition, the applicant has requested a Lot Line
Adjustment.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner
on August 18, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 fallowing minutes are a summary of the August 25, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:29 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:
Springbrook Ridge PUD ���''
File No.. LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 2:
Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit No. 3:
To o ra luc Survey
Exhibit No. 4:
Lot Line Adjustment
Exhibit No. 5:
Site Plan
Exhibit No. 6:
Parking Lot Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 7:
Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 8:
Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit No. 9:
Conceptual Drainage Control Plan
Exhibit No. 10:
Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit No. 11:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L1
Exhibit No. 12:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L2
Exhibit No. 13:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L3
Exhibit No. 14: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB 1
Exhibit No. 15: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB2
Exhibit No. 16:
Enhancement Plan,
Stream Buffer Averaging &
Sheet SB3
Exhibit No. 17:
Stream Crossing Culvert
Exhibit No..I—:
Image of Arch Culvert
Exhibit No. 19:
Building "A" Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 20:
Building "A" Floor and Roof Plans
Exhibit No. 21:
Building Elevations, Sheet A103
Exhibit No. 22:
-Building Elevations, Sheet A104
Exhibit No. 23:
Site Sections
Exhibit No. 24: Building "B" Site Section Parking &
Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 25: Building "B" Typical Office Floor
Plan & Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 26:
Retail Elevations, Sheet A107
Exhibit No. 27:
A103
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
Exhibit No. 28:
A104
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
Exhibit No. 29:
A107
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner, Community and
Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The
applicant has requested a Preliminary Planned Urban Development that includes office, retail and residential uses
in addition to a lot line adjustment. The project site is comprised of two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. The site is
located in the CA zone and the Commercial Land Use designation in the Benson Hill area. The site is surrounded
on all sides by roads and is located at the intersection of Benson Drive S (State Route 515) and Benson Road, on
the north it is bordered by SE 172�d Street. The site is further surrounded by commercial, residential and multi-
family residential uses.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 3
The lot line adjustment would change the sizes of the two lots, Lot I would become I.98 acres and would house
the residential building and would have a net density of 50.26 dwelling units per acre. Lot 2 would contain the
commercial building and would become 1.8 acres.
Some critical areas have been identified on the site and consist of some regulated slopes, medium coal mine
hazards and a Class 4 Stream, which runs through the center of the site. The slopes are not protected slopes.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 15 mitigated
measures. No appeals were filed.
The residential building would be 4-stories (46-feet high). It would contain 107,723 gross square feet with an
underground parking garage with 59 spaces and an associated surface parking lot with 63 spaces to the east of the
building.
The commercial building would contain 35, 552 gross square feet with approximately8,900 square feet of retail
and 17,800 square feet of office space. The parking garage would contain 23 parking spaces with an associated
surface parking with 36 parking spaces. There would be an additional parking lot north of the stream on the
eastern side of the site that is a joint use parking lot that has 35 spaces that can be utilized by either the office
and/or the residential development.
There are 6 separate access locations for the parking garages or surface parking. There is one enter only access
that crosses the stream into the joint use parking lot. There are three access points from SE 172od Street, two
would be directly to the underground parking and one for the surface parking. The applicants have further
proposed a vehicular stream crossing that runs through the center of the site, which would add connectivity to the
commercial and residential. This stream crossing would be necessary for site circulation.
There is also pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site that is provided in several ways. The applicants
have proposed a self-service pedestrian trail as an amenity that would run off State Rt. 515 going south of the
residential building, along the stream and that would be partially in the stream buffer and would connect to the
bridge area on the north side of the stream and further connects to pedestrian crosswalks and pathways through the
parking lot enabling people to reach either the commercial building or the residential building. Sidewalks
throughout the site further connect to street frontages.
There was a discussion regarding modifications that can and cannot be made under the PUD ordinance.
The proposed Springbrook Ridge PUD complies with the City of Renton Development Standards including
Chapter 4.2 zoning districts uses and standards, Chapter 4.3.100 urban design regulations with the exception of
Table A, Chapter 4.4 citywide property development standards and Chapter 4.6.060 street standards.
Vanessa then went through the modifications of the Renton Municipal Code requested by the applicant that are
listed in Table A of the Staff Report. These include the requests for 59 underground parking spaces within the
residential building and 63 surface parking spaces for the multi -family building. Rather than a residential building
with ground floor commercial, the applicant has requested to have the residential building be a stand-alone
building, the maximum number of compact parking spaces to be increased from 30% to 34%, the refuse and
recycle area be reduced to 403.00 square feet from the required 436.5 square feet, the restrictions of critical areas
regarding the removal of trees, the applicant would be allowed to modify the number of trees, they have requested
to remove 35 trees which would be in the vicinity of the vehicular crossing.
The Modifications requested for the Design District D included permitting the front entry of the building to face
the parking areas, a primary entrance of each building would be located in a visual prominent location, connected
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 4
to the street by sidewalks to the public sidewalk, standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection,
and utility areas would be enclosed on all sides and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence, pedestrian
overhead weather protection would be provided on commercial buildings in the form of awnings, marquees,
canopies, or building overhangs. The last item, RMC 4-3-100H.2.d should be stricken from the record.
Regarding the PUD criteria, 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. Public Benefits would include the enhancement or rehabilitation of natural features on the subject
property, provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more aspects, including open
space, landscaping, and site and building design.
Under tree retention, the applicant would be required to retain 15 trees, the applicant has identified 35 trees to be
retained. The circulation proposed is above and beyond requirements. Interior paths should be made of different
material than the parking lot surface material.
The landscaping around the residential building and along NE 172nd Street that the applicant has provided is
generously -sized with a minimum of 15-feet. This would provide screening and buffering for the parking lot but
would also enhance the look of the site along the intersection of Benson Road and Benson Drive. They have
further proposed native plantings along the stream corridor and the removal of invasive weeds within that area.
The proposed plan did not include landscaping along the entire frontage of the site and that would be required.
Landscaping islands in the parking area would be between four stalls and would include trees, shrubs and
groundcover.
Site design has included the buffering area and the utilization of the existing grades of the site by using
modulation and building height and setbacks. The orientation of the buildings takes in the downtown views. The
commercial building location creates a "gateway effect". The residential building includes vertical and horizontal
modulation with further division of decks and overhangs, changes of materials and color and stepping of the roof
line. The commercial building design includes structural features that create a smaller scale and the facades are
modulated in this building with changes of materials and colors. The east side of the building steps down to
follow the grades that helps further modulate the building. Various materials have been proposed to create a
pleasant frontage. The project does comply with the PUD building standards.
Katherine Laird, 1201 Third Avenue Ste., 1680, Seattle 98101 stated that the applicant would support the
modifications listed in Table A and asked that those be approved. They believe that the walking trail is adequate
to satisfy the entire footage required. The staff report states that there is no lighting plan, there is lighting shown
on the site plan (Ex. 5) there is a legend that shows where lighting would be place. They will provide a more
detailed lighting plan that would show the throw of the light and the candles of the light. There are also two
different height pole lights for the parking lot that have been proposed as part of the site plan.
The site really only works from a circulation perspective if that center crossing is in place. This is a difficult site
due to its triangular shape with a State highway on one side, another main arterial on another side and a residential
neighborhood to the north. It only makes sense to have a fully compatible development of the site, which the city
stressed as being important to them. It would otherwise become a residential island and a commercial island with
difficult access and does not work with the property. Mr. Wagner will give the reasons why the building was
designed with the parking underground and why all of it is not underground. They would ask that the Examiner
approve the parking as it is. The traffic consultant to the project has indicated that the DOT would only allow one
access point off Benson Drive due to the closeness to the State Rt. 515.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.. LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 5
Rich Wa er, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Bellevue 98004 stated that on the question of the stream
crossing the parking lot on the east side would serve the majority of the offices, if there were to be no auto bridge
and only a pedestrian bridge, that parking lot would also be putting traffic on the residential street, that did not
seem Iike a wise thing to do. If that area is not developed as a parking lot it has no viable use because of all the
encumbrances that are in that area and the grade. The recognition of the trails being part of the open space can be
made to work. The grade change from Benson Road (SR 515) to the first level which is three floors below the
main level, the grade change is 16-feet, therefore making more underground parking would be very difficult. .
They are trying to hit a market rate housing, most of which is all surface parking and in this neighborhood the
development patterns have been all surface parking. The hope is to address partially that 50% of the parking
would be underneath. On the recycling center, enforcement on these has created some problems within the city,
revisiting recycling center codes would be appropriate. The deck size can be accommodated.
Norm Schick, 16625 1061" Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that he had several question regarding this project. He is
concerned about the increased number of vehicles that would be along 106"'. The speed limit is not posted on that
street and would like to see speed bumps to slow traffic. The water along 106`" now runs toward the project. It
runs in a ditch to a culvert to 172d, water floods the street during the heavy winter rains. There are many elderly
people living on 106`h they walk a lot and don't hear as well as they should. There is a school near the site and the
parking lot to the south being used for illegal activities and then throwing the residue from that into the school
ground. The school bus runs along 172d Street which is a substandard street, paving is very thin and would break
up very easy with increased traffic. The west side of the project has become a dumping ground for abandoned
vehicles. With the landscaping along SR515 the roots of the trees could eventually cause the pavement to buckle.
There is a coal mine vent in that area and if it is just filled in, an earthquake could cause the area to settle
considerably. Finally, the property values could be lowered due to this project.
Marilyn Ragle, 16805 1061h Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that she is concerned about the traffic. She understood
that SE 172d would be extended to the west to Benson Drive. Her concern is with the increase of traffic would
not only affect 172"d, but also 106`" which would become the quickest and easiest route to take to the new parking
lot of this development. She would also like to see speed bumps on 106'h
Ka en Kittrick, CED stated that traffic would find where it will go, speed bumps can be installed, the residents
need to request them however, they make it more difficult and the Fire Department does not like them. This is a
new area for the city and it will have to be watched and studied. There will be expansion on 172"4 with full
improvements, safety amenities would be put in like sidewalks, all roads will be maintained by the City. All
unposted roads in the City have a speed limit of 25 mph. There are trees that don't eat sidewalks and the City is
using them more often.
Katherine Laird stated that street improvements on 172"d will enhance the pedestrian traffic and improve the road
conditions. There could be a sign at the exit of the garage that could direct people to go right only, no access to
106`h. There is no retail on the ground floor of the apartment which should lower the daytime traffic in that area.
The coal mine vent has been studied by Icicle Creek Engineers, they have recommended a structural plug and is a
condition of approval for this project. This is going to be all apartments, not condominiums.
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 10.52 a.m.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
Springbrook Ridge FUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 6
The applicant, Alex Cugini, CIO Century Pacific, LP, filed a request for a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development (PPUD) to allow the development of a residential building and a commercial building.
2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Envirorunental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation
and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1 .
The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M). ,
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
The subject site is located on an almost triangular -shaped parcel delimited by Benson Drive South (SR-
515) on the southwest, Benson Road South on the southeast and SE 172nd Street on the north. Two third -
party properties take up the northeast corner of the triangular block and are developed with a daycare
facility. The subject site is vacant and heavily wooded.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). It is located in the Urban Design District D
overlay area.
The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008.
9. The areas north of the subject site are zoned R-8 (Single Family Residential; 8 dwelling units/acre).
Northeast of the site is an R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units/acre) zone. An R-14 zone is located east
of the subject site and additional CA zoning is located east and south of the site.
10. The subject site is approximately 164,828 square feet or 3.78 acres. As noted, the parcel is generally
triangular in shape. The parcel has approximately 390 feet of frontage along Benson Road South,
approximately 690 feet of frontage along Benson Drive South and approximately 540 feet of frontage
along 172nd Street.
11. The subject site slopes downward toward a stream that runs generally east to west across the subject site.
High spots are located near the northeast corner of the site and near the triangle's southernmost corner.
12. The stream is a Class 4 stream. The subject site also contains coal thine hazards and steep slopes. The
applicant proposes using buffer averaging to create two usable building footprints. The applicant has two
bridges crossing the creek with one an internal combined vehicular and pedestrian bridge crossing the
creek. Buffer averaging would result in a loss of 6,756 square feet with replacement of 7,014 square feet.
The applicant will be planting enhancement vegetation at a 1:1 ratio for disturbed areas as well as 32,269
square feet of enhanced or invasive plant replacement.
13. The subject site is forested and contains a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, cottonwood and Oregon ash as
well as a mixed understory of shrubs, fir and blackberry. The subject site contains 440 trees of 6-inch or
greater caliper. Forty trees are within the proposed public right-of-way and 94 are located in critical
areas. Staff calculated that there are 306 protected trees of which the applicant proposes retaining 12.
The ERC required protection of potentially 35 trees. The remaining tree and vegetation cover would be
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 7
removed to allow development of the proposed buildings and parking and circulation aisles.
14, The subject site is comprised of two underlying lots. Lot A is .7995 acres and Lot B is 29844 acres. The
applicant has a Lot Line Adjustment pending which would create Proposed Lots 1 and 2. Proposed Lot I
would be approximately 1.98 acres and be located in the north portion of the site. Proposed Lot 2 would
be approximately 1.80 acres of the remaining southern acreage.
15. The applicant proposes developing two buildings on the subject site. A multiple family residential
building, Building A, containing 97 units would be developed on the northeast portion of the site
generally adjacent to Benson Drive and 172nd Street. A mixed use, retail and commercial building,
Building B, containing approximately 26,700 square feet would be located in the southern portion of the
site adjacent to Benson Drive and Benson Road.
16. The multiple family building would be 4-stories over underground parking. The building would contain
107,723 gross square feet. It would be 46 feet tall. The building would contain 59 stalls in the parking
garage and 63 surface stalls located north and east of the building. Staff calculated the density at 50.26
dwelling units per acre after the lot line adjustment is approved. The building's footprint is complex
running east -west, north -south, east -west again and then south to north. This change in facade breaks up
the apparent length and bulk of the building. Coupled with those major breaks in the facade are
modulations in the major facade elements.
17. The retail -commercial building would be 3-stories. It would contain 8,900 square feet of retail space on
the ground level and 17,800 square feet of office space in the upper two stories. There would be 23
structured parking stalls and 36 surface stalls for this building.
18, Both buildings will contain modulation and articulation beyond the standards of code. There will be
horizontal and vertical design changes and decks, overhangs and varied materials and colors used to
camophlage the bulk of both buildings. Canopies will setoff the entrances of the main areas as well as the
individual retail spaces. Features have been designed to create additional shadow lines to also reduce the
apparent bulk and height of the buildings. Staff noted that while the two buildings provide different
functions, they use common materials and linked landscaping and pedestrian elements. Each building is
designed to transition or reflect the adjacent uses - north are residential uses and south are commercial
uses.
19. In addition to the parking specifically allotted to each building there would be 35 surface stalls that could
serve either the residential or commercial uses. Parking will generally be hidden behind the buildings and
not be visible on the arterial streets. The arterial streets provide less than an aesthetic entry for the
buildings and circulation is limited so that the major entrances to the buildings was designed to face the
parking areas although this arrangement was offset by formal entrances with canopies. Retail will face
the street.
20. Access to the site will be provided to the site via six locations. There would be three driveways along
172nd Street with two of those dedicated to the garage. There would be a right-in/right-out driveway
along Benson Drive just south of the creek. There would be two driveways along Benson Road South
with a right-in/right-out driveway located south of the creek and an "enter -only" driveway north of the
creek. Staff noted that the roads in the area can handle the traffic but there will be impacts on the adjacent
residential area. Frontage improvements should facilitate traffic and pedestrians, particularly children
with new sidewalks, curbs and guttcrs.
21. The landscaping requirements of the CA Zone require 5 percent tree retention. The applicant will attempt
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 8
to protect 35 trees if possible providing a retention rate of approximately 15 percent. In addition, the
applicant will be providing 133 new trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the buildings and the
site. Landscaping will also be provided in the parking areas. Enhanced plantings are proposed along the
north boundary of the subject site to screen the low intensity uses to the north from the apartment
building. The surface parking areas will have a minimum of 15 feet of landscape strips. Staff did
recommend additional landscaping along all of Benson Drive. Staff recommended that the final
landscaping plans show drought -tolerant plants and/or irrigation plans.
22. The applicant proposed a path along the western portion of the creek which would connect to the bridge's
pedestrian path, aiuewaiks would then provide the rest of the pedestrian circulation. Staff recommended
that the path be continued along the creek to Benson Road as part of the public amenities provided by this
PUD. The applicant had requested a waiver of street improvements along Benson Road (east property
line) to reduce impacts to the creek. Staff noted that the Utility Division believes sufficient area exists for
these improvements and recommended that they be installed to provide a complete pedestrian path. Staff
recommended that pedestrian paths within parking areas be separately delineated.
23. The open space for each unit appears sufficient except for some corner units and the two ground floor
units. Staff has recommended that the decks be enlarged to code dimensions for all units and that the
ground floor units similarly comply with the deck dimension requirements. The applicant has not
provided sufficient common open space. The applicant proposed approximately 2,464 square feet
whereas 4,850 square feet is required. Staff recommended that the project provide the required opened
space.
24. Stormwater will be captured, retained and then released to its natural outlet, the stream, and pre -
development rates will be maintained.
25. Sewer and water will be provided by the Soo Creek District.
26. The applicant has asked that phasing for the project be considered. The applicant has suggested that the
multiple family building would be Phase I and Phase 11 would entail the commercial building but has
asked that the reverse be considered, too. Staff has noted that the stream mitigation, bridge and pedestrian
amenities on the bridge and along the creek be part of Phase I no matter which element is developed
initially as they are a large part of the public benefit in adopting this PUD.
27. A PUD may not authorize uses inconsistent with those permitted by the underlying zoning but does
permit a modification of standards in some cases. Staff has provided a table showing the requested
modifications from standard requirements. That table is reproduced here:
Table A
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE aM_CJ
RMC #
Re wired jZer RMC
Re nested Modification
RMC 4-2-120A: Required Location for
Parking for residential units shall be
To provide 59 parking spaces
Parking
enclosed within the same building as the
within the residential building
unit it serves.
in a underground/ground floor
parking garage and 63 surface
parking spaces for the multi-
family buildin .
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 9
RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated
Note 18
Stand alone residential and
With Zoning Use Tables
a. General Requirements: Subject to the
ground floor residential to be
density limits of the development
permitted.
standards for this zone and only permitted
within a structure containing commercial
uses on the ground floor. Commercial
space must be reserved on the ground
floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30') in
depth along any street frontage.
Residential uses shall not be located on
the ground floor, except for a residential
entry feature linking the residential
portion of the development to the street.
RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum
Compact parking spaces shall not account
All other uses — not to exceed
Number of Compact Spaces Outside of
for more than:
34 percent.
the UC-N1 and UC-N2 Zones
i All other uses — not to exceed thirty
percent 30% .
RMC 44-090D.1: Refuse and
Minimum Size: A minimum of one and
403.00 square feet
Recyclables Multi -family Developments
one-half (1-1 /2) square feet per dwelling
Minimum Size Requirements
unit in multi -family residences shall be
provided for recyclables deposit areas,
except where the development is
participating in a City -sponsored program
in which individual recycling bins are
used for curbside collection. A minimum
of three (3) square feet per dwelling unit
shall be provided for refuse deposit areas.
A total minimum area of eighty (80)
square feet shall be provided for refuse
and recyclables deposit areas.
Comment: For this development, the
minimum size required would be 436.50
s uare eet.
RMC 44-130D.2 Restrictions for
Unless exempted by critical areas, RMC
The allowance of 36 trees to be
Critical Areas — General
4-3-05005 or Shoreline Master Program
removed and associated land
Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree
clearing in a Class 4 stream and
removal, or land clearing, or ground cover
stream buffer critical area for
management is permitted:
the construction of vehicular
a. On portions of property with protected
transportation stream crossings
as permitted by RMC 4-3-
critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K;
050L.8.a subject to mitigation
streams and lakes, per RMC 4-3-050L,
identified within the SEPA
Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090,
Environmental Review.
Renton Shoreline Master Program
Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-
050M; and their associated buffers;
Design District `D' Requested Modifications
Springbrook Ridge PUD'' 0
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 10
RMC 4-3-100E.2.a.ii
The front entry of a building shall not be
Front entry of buildings would
oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a
be permitted to front parking
public or private street or landscaped
areas.
pedestrian -only court -yard
RMC 4-3-100E.3.a.i
A primary entrance of each building shall
A primary entrance of each
be located on the facade facing a street,
building shall be located in a
shall be prominent, visible from the street,
visual prominent location,
connected by a walkway to the public
connected to the street by
sidewalk, and include human -scale
sidewalks to the public
elements.
sidewalk, and include human -
scale elements.
RMC 4-3-100E.5.a.iii
In addition to standard enclosure
In addition to standard
requirements, garbage, recycling
enclosure requirements,
collection, and utility areas shall be
garbage, recycling collection,
enclosed on all sides, including the roof
and utility areas shall be
and screened around their perimeter by a
enclosed on all sides, and
wall or fence and have self -closing doors
screened around their perimeter
by a wall or fence and have
self -closing doors
RMC 4-3-100G.3.b.i
Provide pedestrian overhead weather
Provide pedestrian overhead
protection in the form of awnings,
weather protection on
marquees, canopies, or building
commercial buildings in the
overhangs. These elements shall be a
form of awnings, marquees,
minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2')
canopies, or building
wide along at least seventy five percent
overhangs. These elements shall
(75%) of the length of the building facade,
be a minimum of four and one -
a maximum height of fifteen feet (15')
half feet (4-1/2') wide along at
above the ground elevation, and no lower
least seventy five percent (75%)
than eight feet (8) above ground level.
of the length of the building
facade, a maximum height of
fifteen feet (I T) above the
ground elevation, and no lower
than eight feet (8') above
ound level.
RMC 4-3-100H.2.d
1,000 square foot Public Plaza at the
590 square foot Public Plaza at
intersection of Benson Drive South and
the intersection of Benson
1081h Avenue SE, with a minimum
Drive South and 108" Avenue
dimension of 20-feet on one side abutting
SE, with a minimum dimension
the sidewalk.
of 20-feet on one side abutting
the sidewalk. That may be
located just north of the
intersection to accommodate for
existing topographical contrast
at the subject intersection.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 11
CONCLUSIONS:
Planned Urban Development (PUD)
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 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
iii. 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:
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.
Springbrook Ridge PUD (* 0
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 12
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 systcm of walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas,
transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
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 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 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)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be
designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed -use,
commercial, and industrial developments are described below.
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 stormwater 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.
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 13
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 El bi to v of this Section specify common open
space standards for the residential portions of mixed -use developments.
i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more
dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area
equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to
provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of
common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the 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:
i. 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:
I % of the lot area + I % of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -
oriented space
Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building.
ii. 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 he
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 14
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.
iv. 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
(c) 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 he located to take advantage of surrounding features
such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or
architecture, and solar exposure.
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 of
at 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 (101) 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 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 of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one
year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a
period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device
for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract
with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and
kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the
Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but
not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by
the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her
designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060,
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 15
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)
It appears that some background on a PUD (Planned Urban Development) is necessary. The fact is that a
PUD is kind of a compact or contract between the property's owner or developer and the City. The City
modifies or relaxes its normal standards such as lot size or setbacks or street dimensions and the
developer agrees to provide enhanced development and, it must be emphasized "AND" public benefit.
The City's Critical Areas ordinances and complementary regulations already protect the natural features
on this site. So the question is whether the proposed development, two separate buildings with substantial
and interesting design features as well as the proposed trail, provide sufficient public benefit.
3. The buildings are well -designed and provide more than the required modulating elements. There will be
an interplay of vertical and horizontal elements as well as the use of a variety of materials and colors. All
of these combined architectural elements will soften the appearance of the building and provide the
viewer with buildings with less apparent bulk as well as visual interest. There will be decks on the
residential building and overhangs and canopies on both buildings. The rooilines will modulate and the
facades step inward or change direction. Landscaping all around the project area and in the interior will
provide visual relief. The one intrusive element is the applicant's proposed bridge over the creek in the
interior of the site. While the applicant and staff suggested this enhances the project, clearly, it creates
tradeoffs including the additional intrusion into the creek and its buffer area. It clearly enhances internal
circulation on the site but is it necessary for the two buildings to be tied together by a vehicular crossing
of a creek? The two buildings serve two completely different functions, one residential and the other
retail and office. While the retail offerings might appeal to the residents of the complex, a pedestrian
bridge, a much smaller, less intrusive crossing, could tie those functions together. It appears that the main
selling point of this vehicular bridge is to serve automotive interests and allow parkers to park either north
or south of the creek for access to the office building. It appears staff believes this is an appropriate. And
it might be given the nature of surrounding roads and the limited right-in/right-out limitations on the
driveways serving this site. At the same time, limitations exist for most uses along Benson since free left
turn movements are restricted as they are in other areas of the City such as Rainier. For this tradeoff the
applicant definitely needs to create and welcome the public on trails along the creek throughout the site.
The pedestrian connections, delineations and trail extensions recommended by staff are necessary for this
PUD to provide the necessary public benefit.
4. In most other particulars, as noted, the proposal is well -designed. It takes full advantage of the site's
location and topography to provide an enhanced layout for the two buildings. They are well -separated
providing light and air to both buildings. Views from the site will be enhanced although with the sacrifice
of the dense woods now on the site. The site is zoned for commercial uses but confining the commercial
uses to the southern half of the site reduces impacts on the single family homes north of the site.
Commercial uses could generate a different level of traffic in the evening than residential uses in Building
A which will face those single family uses. The dedication of Building A to residential uses makes sense
to provide a transition to the more intense uses along Benson Drive. At the same time, the new driveways
along 172nd will clearly create new impacts that the current, forested site does not create. Besides traffic,
the new population will increase the general hubbub. These impacts were envisioned when the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were established for this site and area. The new sidewalks and walking
trails will also provide neighbors with safer walking opportunities.
The proposed modifications requested for this PUD as denoted by Table A seem appropriate given the
constraints of the subject site. While it appears that the applicant could probably have achieved many of
its objectives and still met code requirements, the site does contain a creek and heavily trafficked
roadways on two sides of this triangular site. The creek, while not of the highest caliber, does cut across
Springbrook Ridge PUD (* 0
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 16
the site making for challenging development limitations but also an amenity when fully respected. The
buffer averaging and bridge incursion is being offset with appropriate additions to the creek buffer and
vegetation enhancements. Landscaping will be generously provided along the perimeter of the site and in
the interior. Parking areas will be screened. The buildings contain more than ample architectural
detailing.
6. The applicant has requested that the project be permitted to be phased. While the applicant suggests that
the residential component would probably be Phase I, the applicant desires to maintain flexibility. In any
event, phasing is appropriate as long as the creek enhancements, internal bridge, trail, landscaping
elements and all frontage improvements are completed with whichever component is Phase I. Frontage
improvements along all roads is an important element whether the residential or commercial component
becomes Phase I so that neighboring residents can walk to the commercial aspect of this proposal or
residents of this complex can circulate to the greater Benson neighborhood and as part of the overall
public benefit of developing this property as a PUD as opposed to just meeting CA standards..
In summary, the proposed project appears reasonably well -designed and provides adequate public benefit
RECOMMENDATION:
The Springbrook Preliminary Planned Urban Development should be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be completed and recorded with King County prior to residential
building permit approval.
2. The applicant shall extend the proposed soft surface pedestrian path from the vehicular crossing
in the center of the site to run along the south side of the stream and connect to Benson Road
South, an updated site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval prior to Final PUD approval.
3. All pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material
or texture from adjacent paving materials. An updated site plan depicting proposed materials or
texture for pedestrian pathways through parking areas shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval
4. A detailed final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval that indicates landscaping enhancement along the
entire frontage of Benson Drive South, with the exception of the portion within the stream buffer
area associated with the Class 4 stream on the subject site.
5. The applicant shall submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval, that indicates either 100 percent
drought tolerant plantings or provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan.
6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting
in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed.
7. Prior to building permit approval, for the commercial structure, the applicant shall provide a
refuse and recycling screening detail to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, Ll_A
September 24, 2009
Page 17
8. The applicant shall provide to the Current Planning Project Manager a revised parking plan that
indicates 4 ADA parking spaces for the commercial development prior to Final PUD approval.
9. When the first phase of Springbrook Ridge PUD is to be constructed (either the residential or
commercial building), the final approved stream buffer mitigation plan shall be implemented and
completed, including but not limited to the addition of the soft surface pedestrian trial, two
benches, monument sign, and center site vehicular crossing. The applicant shall complete all
frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of Phase I development.
10. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and/or multi -family building plans to the Current
Planning Project Manager that shows compliance with the 4,850 square feet of common open
space required for the PUD development, prior to Final PUD approval.
11. The decks proposed on the multi -family building, that do not comply with the 5-foot minimum
dimension, shall be redesigned to provide no dimension less then 5-feet. The applicant shall
submit new floor plans for the multi -family building showing compliance with the 5-foot
minimum dimension for private open space to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
Final PUD approval.
12. The applicant shall be required to establish a joint property owners' association for the
development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not
limited to the soft surface trail within the stream buffer and the shared parking lot, within the
PUD prior to Final PUD approval.
13. The applicant shall complete all frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of
Phase I development.
ORDERED THIS 24`h day of September 2009.
FRED J. KAOMAN I
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS24th day of September 2009 to the parties of record:
Vanessa Dolbee Kayren Kittrick Jerry Miller
Development Serviees Development Services PO Box 686
Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057
Jerry Miller
P.O. Box 686
Renton, WA 98057
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific, LP
1201 Third Ave., Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Jerry & Ana Miller
10622 SE 1720' St.
Renton, WA 98055
John Murphy
4314 148" St.
Bothell, WA 98012
Norman Schick
16625 106"' Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98055
Marilyn Ragle
16805 — 106`h Ave. SE
Renton, WA 98055
Springbrook Ridge PUD !
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 18
George & Frances Subic
11.0. Box 89
Renton, WA 98057-0089
Crissa Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Alex & Norma Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Cathy Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
TRANSMITTED THIS 241h day of September 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
F1
Robert Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 a.m., October 8, 2009. 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., October 8, 2009.
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 processiniz 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.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING
On the 26th day of August, 2009, 1 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
Representing
Katherine Laird
Contact
Alex, Norma, Crissa, Robert, Cathy Cugini
Owners
Jerry & Ana Miller
POR
Jerry Miller
POR
John Murphy
POR
George & Frances Subic
POR
Norman Schick
POR
Marilyn Ragle
POR
(Signature of Sender
STATE OF WASHINv I %J1V
SS
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy Tucker
signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the use`d Id
purposes mentioned in the instrument. ���'`'
Notary (Print):
My appointment expires:
Project Name: Springbrook Ridge PUD
Project Number: LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 6 'gyof
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �0
HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING
September 1, 2009
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: Springbrook Ridge PUD
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD)
for a mixed -use development including office, retail and residential uses. in addition, the applicant has
requested a Lot Line Adjustment. The subject site is located south of SE 172nd Street, west of Benson
Road South and east of Benson Drive South (SR 515). The site is comprised of two vacant parcels
totaling 164,828 square feet (3.78 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The
proposed lot line adjustment would change the two existing parcels as follows: Lot 1 would be 1.98 acres
and Lot 2 would be 1.80 acres. The applicant has proposed a 4-story, 97-unit multi -family complex on
Lot 1 which would have a density of 50.26 dwelling units per acre. Lot 2 would be developed with a 3-
story mixed -use building with retail on the ground floor and office above. Access to the site would be
gained from SE 172nd Street, Benson Drive South and Benson Road South. One access point and an
internal drive aisle crosses over the Class 4 stream located on site. The site contains Coal Mine Hazards,
Steep Slopes and a Class 4 Stream. The applicant has proposed to retain 12 significant trees on the
subject site.
PROJECT NAME: Conner Joint Use Dock
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-074, ECF, SMC, SM
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the construction of an 80-foot long joint use dock with a
boatlift or two mooring pilings on either side of the proposed dock in association witrh two attached
residential units on the shore of Lake Washington, a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and a Shoreline
of the State. The proposed site encompasses two lots, 4113 and 4119 Williams Avenue N (5,773 sf and
5,042 sf, respectively), for a total area of 10,815 square feet in the COR Zone. All materials, equipment
and personnel would be transported to the site by construction barge. Boatlifts and all dock sections
would be prefabricated. Steel batter and mooring piles are proposed to be installed by a barge -mounted
vibratory pile driver. Because boatlifts and mooring pilings are not specifically identified in the Shoreline
Master Program regulations, approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit is required for their
installation.
HEX Agenda 9-1-09.doc
PUBLIC
City of Renton
HEARING
Department of Community and Economic Development
PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
A.
SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST:
REPORT DATE:
August 25, 2009
Project Name:
Springbrook Ridge PUD
Owner:
Alex Cugini, Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, and Cathy Cugini
P.Q. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
Applicant:
Alex Cugini, C/O Century Pacific, LP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680, Seattle,
WA 98101
Contact:
Katherine Laird, Century Pacific, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1680, Seattle, WA
98101
File Number:
LUA09-024, ECF, PPUD, LLA
Project Manager:
Vanessa Dolbee, Associate Planner
Project Description:
The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) for
a mixed -use development including office, retail and residential uses. In addition,
the applicant has requested a Lot Line Adjustment. The subject site is located
south of SE 172nd Street, west of Benson Road South and east of Benson Drive
South (SR 515). The site is comprised of two vacant parcels totaling 164,828
square feet (3.78 acres) located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone. The
proposed lot line adjustment would change the two existing parcels as follows:
Lot 1 would be 1.98 acres and Lot 2 would be 1.80 acres. The applicant has
proposed a 4-story, 97-unit multi -family complex on Lot 1 which would have a
density of 50.26 dwelling units per acre. Lot 2 would be developed with a 3-story
mixed -use building with retail on the ground floor and office above. Access to
the site would be gained from SE 172nd Street, Benson Drive South and Benson
Road South. One access point and an internal drive aisle crosses over the Class 4
stream located on site. The site contains Coal Mine Hazards, Steep Slopes and a
Class 4 Stream. The applicant has proposed to retain 12 significant trees on the
subject site.
Project Location:
SE 172"d St. & Benson Rd. S. & Benson Dr.
Cilv or Renton Conrmunily and F_cononrlc De�,.,Tmenl De parbnenl Preliminary Re porl to the Hearhkg E.iaminer
SPRINC IROOK RIDGE PUD LUA09-024, ECF PPUD, LLA
PUBLIC IIEARING DATE September 1, 2001
Project Location Map
Page 2 of'25
Cih' o1 Renion Canmuninv and Iicononuc D,.-.opineiil Depm7men! Preluninary Reporl to Me !Hearing Examiner
SPRhVGRROOKRIDGEPUD LUA09-024, I.CF. PPUD. LLA
PUBLIC HEARING DAYA September I, 2009 Page 3 gj25
B. HEARING EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other
material pertinent to the review of the project.
Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit3: Topographic Survey
Exhibit 4: Lot Line Adjustment
Exhibit 5: Site Plan
Exhibit 6: Parking Lot Landscape Plan
Exhibit 7: Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit8: Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit 9: Conceptual Drainage Control Plan
Exhibit 10: Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit 11: Landscape Plan, Sheet L1
Exhibit 12: Landscape Plan, Sheet L2
Exhibit 13: Landscape Plan, Sheet L3
Exhibit 14: Stream Buffer Averaging & Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB1
Exhibit 15: Stream Buffer Averaging & Enhancement Plan, Sheet 5132
Exhibit 16: Stream Buffer Averaging & Enhancement Plan, Sheet 5133
Exhibit 17: Stream Crossing Culvert Exhibit
Exhibit 18: image of Arch Culvert
Exhibit19: Building 'A' Floor Plans
Exhibit 20: Building 'A' Floor & Roof Plan
Exhibit 21: Building Elevations, Sheet A103
Exhibit 22: Building Elevations, Sheet A104
Exhibit 23: Site Sections
Exhibit24. Building'B' Site Section Parking & Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit25: Building 'B' Typical Office Floor Plan & Roof Plan
Exhibit26: Retail Elevations, Sheet A107
Exhibit 27: Building Elevations, color, Sheet A103
Exhibit28: Building Elevations, color, Sheet A104
Exhibit29: Building Elevations, color, Sheet A107
Cin= of Rerrlon Cnnunrmiry and liconanric Dr ropmerr! Department Preliminary Report ro the lleuring L:rumiuc°r
SPRINGI3ROOK RIDGE. PUD LU1109-014. 1>CF. PPUD. LLA
PUBLIC HEARING UAT E Seplember 1. 200Y Page 4 of 15
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
I.
Owner of Record: Alex Cugini, Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini,
and Cathy Cugini
P.O. Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
2.
Zoning Designation: Commercial Arterial (CA)
3.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Corridor (CC)
4.
Existing Site Use: Vacant
5.
Neighborhood Characteristics:
North: Single-family and multi -family neighborhood (R-8 and R-14 zones)
East: Daycare facility and vacant property (CA zone)
South:commercial and office uses (CA zone)
West: Multi -family and single-family residential property (CA and R-8 zones)
6.
Proposed Orientation: N/A
7.
Site Area: 164,828 square feet (3.78 acres)
S.
Project Data:
Existing Building Area: N/A
D.
HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No.
Date
Annexation N/A 5327
03/01/2008
Comprehensive
Plan N/A 5099
11/1/2004
Zoning
N/A 5191
11/12/2005
E.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Utilities:
Water: This site is not located in the City of Renton Water District but is located in the
Soos Creek Water District.
Sewer: This site is not located in the City of Renton Sewer District but is located in the
Soos Creek Sewer District.
Surface Water/Storm Water: The City of Renton does not have any records of storm
drainage facilities in this area. The site is not located in the Aquifer Protection
Zone.
2. Streets: There are existing street improvements along Benson Drive South (SR 515), and
a portion of Benson Road South.
3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department
On, of Renton Commmity and Economic Del. �o anew Department Prelimimrry Report to the Hearing Lsanriner
SPR1ArGRROOK RWUGIs PUD LU1109-024. ECF. PPUD. LLA
PURL ICHEVUNG DA Ili Sepiember 1. 2009 Pagc 5 of 25
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
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
3. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
4. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations
Section 4-7-050: General Outline of Subdivision, Short Plat and Lot Line Adjustment
Procedures
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
H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS:
1. Project Description/Background
The applicant is requesting review of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD); in addition,
the applicant is requesting a Lot Line Adjustment. The PPUD proposes the construction of two new
buildings; one multi -family residential and one commercial. The new 4-story, multi -family residential
building would contain 97 dwelling units, underground parking, and associated surface parking. A 3-
story commercial building would be located along the southern border of the property line, fronting
Benson Drive South and Benson Road South. The commercial building would include approximately
8,900 square feet of retail space and 17,800 square feet of general office space, parking garage and
associated surface parking. The project site is comprised of two lots; Parcel A: 0.7995 acres and Parcel
B: 2.9844 acres, both are vacant. The Lot Line Adjustment that accompanies the PPUD application
would change the size of the 2 lots to; 1.9804 acres (Lot 1) and 1.8035 acres (Lot 2). The project site is
located north of the intersection of Benson Drive South and Benson Road South and located south of
SE 172nd Street. The site is triangular in shape and is bordered on all sides by roads, Benson Drive
South, Benson Road South and SE 172nd Street with the exception to the northeast corner of the site
where an existing daycare facility is located. The subject site is designated as Commercial Corridor on
Jerry Miller
PO Box 686
Renton, WA 98057
tel: (425) 277-9235
(party of record)
Jerry & Ana Miller
10622 SE 172nd Street
Renton, WA 98055
(party of record)
Norman Schick
16625 106th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
tel: (425) 793-3585
(party of record)
PARTIES OF RECORD
Springbrook Ridge PU®
LUA09-024, ECF, V-H, PPUD, LLA
Katherine Laird
Century Pacific, LP
1201 Third Avenue ste: #1680
Seattle, WA 98101
tel: (206) 757-8892
eml: katherinelaird@dwt.com
(contact)
John Murphy
4314 148th Street
Bothell, WA 98012
tel: (425) 953-4719
(party of record)
Marilyn Ragle
16805-106th Avenue SE
Renton, WA 98055
tel: (425) 255-2365
(party of record)
Alex Cugini
Norma Cugini, Robert Cugini,
Crissa Cugini, Cathy Cugini
PO Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
tel: (425) 226-3900
(owner / applicant)
George & Frances Subic
PO Box 89
Renton, WA 98057-0089
tel: (425) 255-9923
(party of record)
Updated: 06/18/09 (Page 1 of 1)
I�
105t�h_A_VENI E
+� R
k-
10&hAVENUE
�Ido
iosrr♦Auess
� o 0
--
SPRINGBROOK RiDGB
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT
NEIGHBORHOOD DETA[L MAP
cma wxw.
I- � -_-, I
lma�
106THAV
�pt1y�� E S.E.
-
/
/ ,�-,ti•r,f t Kim y�� -/'y„ s��� I °�. r,
,% J.Y" -„�\ \\*..c'�;�:�. ����' � it i % � �,�I, 41 i �� � t Ii •tl r �
r�r.z'is—�•
,,.s.. �oerriAVE.§E-----_-- - --- — --
4
- - - - -
$ to
ilk
a
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE a�
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT —�
W L-.•
CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN 6 ��
Oh Of AE—
Iml Jill $
.' jai
All
c UM
/1 j aG9�
;v #
a6X 1` Y
'.1 � .,i , 1 - —��'ri I 1•1
- G ti 9 y
g m ti Ri.
!. R j
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
LANDSCAPE PLAN If
pia b _ C!O BAYLIS ARCHITECTS '
o z
Dm
-n `K SR 515 (BENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD
W tRPPA� I RENTON•WA
� C7
r�
ti
KI 2E IpFk
na" -.4
ly�a
rya6
D(j PRELIMINARY PLANNED SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
y 8
O 0
le4 � URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Q {�1l� 1 RENTON WILSHINGTON
15Y� ON Imo■ `Ir�nlr I I
r
r i �� Ire lEi�. �iiwrl
f i=!!1 j_�1 liill.l 1��I
I.� NA IIIEe
rl—
l�,I,.,Idle r11111 111110
��• ' RJ �R I ■■It I r. i■ '
am
I�ijl rc rrr Er]IE
�� *a.alrr art I �■.0 !Ai
°uumru Huron i�Nllmff, �u»mur _
� 1119a Eli E#E
P+ EPA'
E■1 log
1 E
EI
a:
1 l 1 l; ■r Sul !1 ilr
!• Y ?! ■a �1 IAI
��, rr ■r Sum -
AWE fCd� ar■e t�dn` i� fu �
� -� n■1 ��{''uE1fEl uEl1 �ju 1
.! ■r! lip wry ; 1�����I ��i ���1 ��1�� �,..
t il�i .1 �Il��i I��♦j I k� •. olanudlw I nl� I awur+ rI
P .L. .�: E. + { jlmrri i cr- ■■# �r�lr II I II
„ ... �-.t,Rr Pytnllat eI11iRt ���M i■5� I""'� II.II.I�'ll i�
a yL. ■ram■ Irrr 1 d�a� j�# Lw"f'n' 1!1111�, 1911U0
1 ��1 1 �� g�J'�� ��1j � ���I IrIjII�. .�■ .■.� ■Wa'. i
sil�, i,i a. �tlia ��Ea �■ ��
m 1II1N =
mantall lay! r�lr
1 1 ■� 14 urmlmimm� rmm�rn
FOR
I f r ff I�
i.
c�. Ira li ' ufl di �
s� �1 �11� MIII I�1 :� � 'i q� I■ �E17 �=1>t
`I,�I4� j'ud f�}�, rl�,'I, i � � 1111tld10 � �FYIItIIIB I+
Iwurl�
Fct � 11dU1ltli IIIiW III Dill
f, y i/IN ■MIl �.
i� liw; t mimni nnsmi : nlsull!
',Rzl�ur Lr Ir I.°
1j!A 1Ilia Illli 11111i
�' .`!�■.I`i ...!R Intl I�,I
w�IINNIIII'Ef1jIII41�tlR�?SpBI�I��! ■t�
x
D . _ PRELIM[NARYPLANNED€ SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
Q
0 E j URBAN DEVELOPMENT ! ��
4f RENTON WASHINGTON
7
MAI li,re 5
'p
# 11 PA.
am.
>
�j
, WE>, 01,
1WIr
om
0
cm
Lo
PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
A I SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
pow an 'IPLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT
S EAM CROSSING
CTURLVERT EXHIBIT
.k
S `` 0"
y G
lip
ay a` a
c
54Q�
JAV HJ 901
Tar�a9 yp9
a� i kFy � ! a g�� IT
O;y
��X$61!��� i�egeK��a=p•& �:p�e�� b°eAsk�?6sp�i° a �� i
.11
IN r
Fpj �Y:
NnShl M-W57JAVIIIAT
r aiW:oa� �
5 / \
+° g
'3e yy µ p ipt
'�-� k�gg1��qEYyyyy�, pV a�
s ` is¢4�3 54AAq'p JL°'y RMF�
i 4
m S�Y_F:Y�3 EIQ Yy Y Y
g 4r�1�� I
_• g F g
ugpe • y 3E i"a ° q qjaJB ppf9y Elf
•
ild
149 'r ° y �I : La5'w!'a �� a �� . E•; r_t g
E i i
¢ $ 7 ga g u bob h� 3 a p $ o v
N rva �= ns1-4
ELw
bRIr
$❑
O r W a - € ❑~ �5 �W ❑� ff �dg ggig N oz N
ztl
02
26
Sb
a €iz
os 393 gZAi�i SS
kg
LT'a�a�rv6N wn
� c
$
wa {{9[[< � B.. �SEE�d`Az' � �`-" WuB�bg 5+� 8�] '�� u � o �Y••••
i-
I s"W o o _� ad"�wzxl��ry �s��8ary�g n
8 R ggUuO �^w �¢ �KwZ aa�� o Z
I" gpz� jw r €Sa'iawFq�"��
i wz
oS Fig g <¢omri a_m_m�zK'��� ❑Z9
NO
n
a I I ti I 3 cad` m( Yuz �$_dgaCC'am �('��7 ff $' rvz g U F Y
O vi " �`a �om`u9i uz qq¢ �w❑��m � `^�" us5 0 � m $� a � v � N
b�o0 N nx 4r F aoz
Ia$❑ vQ' �'I �I ❑ �gc`�-�"�s� gi5 m'^g�rc$0. �>� �c' �af3�RZ ff@�o'F ;mWz ��z��=:F-gw�� z`c'mm<�3o'a gfi"�ia3�"gz j,�� o°� zow
ff zog N 5Wa
z
t 8
B8Qa4�aog a
1 o
08SS"6 8ryry Q w
IX O I W�w n❑€ gt ��(oi'&"u sa3ucn¢r ii y t5 mz n n W W N(�
a n ap I'g' 2❑g' �w i ¢A osc-�ob^2 aigtrr 7oLim oi%s�
a w gaw Eau Oa- OgQw�w�� �m��Q
� ,d„a i < � a$$ �� . � �(B �S���moG�❑"�"s����7a�. o�`m � w
r oa W a� n u'$G�-��"•.b�y Y' z
FQ I( to o Yew z 'i p i
"r m�i�m w'iL"gAmWmmm wU �g �n mi �' y!"' W. $� 'bIz $I Qa
Q IT. Ld wW gO �gimd � H az S '°° z�
> o z Iz =(a awa�w x asa=oo a _rawi_a=sia�aa�>a�� U�
a o I z �$_amm� zm N " " m
�Wlz
Q U Q 10 X W x N
gFJ I w z o
�(w❑- i k6F 3 I � � I g mF � '
Wly-
�}'�
W I Z Q � �€ C I a `,�_,� z W I � „i€ � I o b� a i t g ❑� N :w
�z gg II
a o ?
aOOM :v'+
ams� Ira a &� asp J 3 r
a z a
h 3
w c�
o Ln j c s " E-�
z
IT
� g N I%= almat bkfag
za�v e
�j �� a�n ioS 8s3 �•+ � fib 'a+yaxc�7 4 q
L{L I � � 9'A � ri �i � r g x n• AYMKNI �1"y'� O -
N 9 _ _ v°: 31Y15 A•MeNDeE � /�.� o w b
� ('UPI AIOSA[8H) Fy-1 ~`J
N �-y
S'IAdHL$0[ Si E % m; Y
" O O
U ¢ ID o�i u Y8
N IDitsw u �b s. w o
g b ^gam
xmV �'8z r
i L
roe'a• zj$s / N o N rks i
llllil 7.cz t.wn
10
hF�t I
in
��b a� •1 + � � f5x� i
(so) tvvn irizr wM ! \ o jl g ail
n v
r ►c oa ss ct� . g
9Nr+ �low =Ekin
�
\�f IM Q�+„ q
` ONv�"� �~�< r /: �M1� K^ery G�eFp�• xVa�cR �
��C ` �b� Ng�d �•, i � �ox..,aw �`�
H1901
agog
as N
ZLLJ
a
NE / NN I go y Y Z tr a� a P
/ a �i.. � H mry`� L1 a ®u • �I � pP `O
Q Q / �n ii+ySS fS Ir gT;B
I z I
� gggg � f rj I
r ij3zt [ I!
e� 4,i r TTd555 F --
Tal-
_ e' i cni -- -106THAVE, $.E.- — — -
e
` Hal
OF
9=
Vj
I
o
P
a e Ail
q
a s 9 SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT e _
CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE CONTROL PLAN % R�
--
dh fK nENttN
-/
Al j
' ..
' /
/ / |
106TH AVE,
' ' |
S.E.
' .
'
I IIg
I Lilt
p
Hill
1
-3
4
C C C N
Z C q
O
N
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING & ENHANCEME
C/O BAYLIS ARCHITECTS
SR 515 (BENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD
RENTON, WA
rr
ai
1 i
,ft
I
rn
qo
m
n
rn
„I m
4
�a
------------
® aOOO 04.
�
s AA JOZ
Z / l / / •S t
Z
Z
{p 20
up
c
yp �pS pg pq yy yq pg yp T i i J �• , ,
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 p '�• - _
Oy Tt
y t �r
�C \. 1
i F r
Z
O �C: a; % I
m \\ , j" �\ \ - ` won` I 1
LA
1% ' '``
"OW SPRINGBROOK RIDGE Ku
STREAM BUFFER AVERAGING & ENHANCEMENT PLAN -
ra r C/O BAYLIS ARCHITECTS p f w o; x
n $ P R 't SR 515 (BENSON ❑WVE) AND BENSON ROAD g z
RENTON• WA
x �
$5
"MIPi I !,I'll
_ 'a4g 1a Il H
91�
Z s 1a�R ��aa #9 R as a SRR s
g�
Z Ii;i="11 a it jiij AR Jill Ili I >�
O;
Jill,; f
z
a
m A R E R Hal H
�oI Ill I 11, 1' 11 1 Ill
H Ali if
,
R a1 g H,1111mil—
R a it iR� aµ= a� a lull
is
1
R^_ SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
w M� STREAM BUFFERAVERAGING & ENHANCEMENT PLAN n I IP g,
6 C/O BAYLIS ARCHITECTS o T
-n $ r SR S I S (BENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD c '
W P? RENTON, WA
� O
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
LANDSCAPE PLAN
C/O BAYLIS ARCHITECTS
SR 515 (BENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD
RENTON, WA
1
�Iqjllim
i gilip � -d 1 1" a a a; as � 11
JJJJU111jili
ol
HP11, all
11
n ,d �r
0 lip Ip Ix at � 91 i 4
90 oil, 1
P g aA ,kS : !pe 4 4 §9 aE gg4�ila
P IN
Ially
:M10 piegil
'
z�
a�i g a a $
]0
Zit till I, W ii
HIM
Y
P 0.,
E
11
5°a^�^�•^��°� SPRINGBROOK RIDGE "
LANDSCAPE PLAN n
O GO BAYLIS ARCHITECTS a o s
,mom
P fg
n $ 'tl — SR SIS IBENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD B z
w t�RRt� RENTON.WA ;
% p
�
rA
ff• ti
►��YL- itTl
• °Ta ,,: sy1.%v����"•'ate.
•,
1.
z +>:•:
m
�— d 6 Cd
Aa3
�f
O
Y .
m
m
z
rn
z
i
0
z
;
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
s
Uo
—
TREE INVENTORY PLAN
2
t
CIO BAYLIS ARCHITECTS
SR 515 (BENSON DRIVE) AND BENSON ROAD
RENTON, WA
106TIi AVE.
o PRELIMINARY PLANNED SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
O pft URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Co !� %� RENTON WASHINGTON � P
fi.
A
zH
,'
I
DPRELIMINARY
PLANNED
0
gt''1
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
F
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE M III
RENTON WPSHINGTON
F
c W
F
> 9
z PREUMINARY PLANNED 'rISPRING BROOK RIDGE
i
igl URBAN DEVELOPMENT
0 3 -TON
f REt�TrON WASHING
Z PRELIMINARY PLANNED SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT Ii
RrKTON WASHING. -TON
lii�
I r
I I IU!', 'ill'. II. !I
fI tl��w
Fp1F, �
+�
}l■��■
���
yl�p�i■
,,.
!p+�!Il■�1[In:„pia
L t.iI!
�
a
s■i r■ rr ■r
IlmrILI
�Iq I ll IE
yh I.■ �,it 1i4w1■
�i rra �laa �■
', Ilulns umun auuLu IRImlt
'�' lil Ilj
111,E ED I1,�� _
���7
n ■ „5
llr� Y
all
a
14� �Jil�llIN
]I�.
�II;�-'
w`'1= � �
'��',�����
a■ I■ram o w■
,p����■���Ij,�
ll, +';;�
` I
, ikIIpII4€I{IIII,It.�111II1I1pNlIII;iNIINiII
Illlgl�lfillll{Si11i111i11li1Ilfkli F11ipIItili�
la■i Iru frsa as
- � r' f I
���'.. ,;�r��it
l��e.:_
fi
i�II`klIp111lklilllilllllilli1+11I`
1-i�
'f]A331�91����I1NII0�sIBI111tYE4�N11110.1f���i�
��� ��
I� �, �rl�
�=l'l1Yj�-�a Ei'� lNr■ llL� I ILA �.
�wIl
�i
;..., nl ter. �■ I■�■ r■al
EfI11L a�■ ■.a rra �a
i� nn.0 Im�rl allmm :u;rnn�.
IICuElI
"�!r �aa lM�c
•I � :ii iii�:
wlrEll'
I I
.�p1l1�y �li�yIllt
�a4�ccef'�'.'Is!:_i.',�f,,Ilj•:� �_
11EE�■I
�ts,�' 1.�: �1�•
I�� �� � (It. III. I � lrl i�
��111y�I�6�I'��E�6'a!! I�_II
��!VI.'
li itli III Iw I !II
yr', IVuill� �IIIIIItl,N1 IIIR4
��� �1 �I��i
�'e�.�'.`•'I
�■� .1! 3 1' � � r—wilr
:�I
,`�,;�IIN ���
�IIIIIIII ',Ili:nll:
!lIBIII illglllll. Tlligglll
rF�:�rl�:� s• arr I�i �i
t�rrrilr■ � �i I�lII I IIIf1 ! Ifs I
A,- = �i11 N lii�111-� ii�iillle •,
1i�1 II, fl Illlla
Al
glk�l��"„�.I�r. r.ul.
Is. I ; �,,., 1♦t �.,. �..,. sw
} �]� � ! �.��=�
U
*R!
_=
I 1j '
ee■N ■1 �1f 11k1l �
�■r �r �r rl
r �� �aa ■ � A. �
....
'
al,�I
��
I-Mre 'llsl•�n� Iil� ! �I,
~ LIII`■Illis Pnmin nI!lum uurun;�, `
f 1.' i� ■ ■I.�
��r �■ ■rr w^r ■��1
Itll'
�
'.•��� Ixii Iril _gill I1
AI �{ III■ tli Ir■■ I
`
,Ak�
■■ .■ rr�lll�.■� �r
��
r
DPRELIMINARY PLANN£D I SRRINGBROOK RIDGE
L e1Ll URBAN DEVELOPMENT #
O � ] {t RENTON WASHINGTON
W I IlIr6
8 I � m6 -C I 'I! 11 SPRINGBROOK RIDGE I I I 11.1g
Z PRELIMINARY PLANNED
C) 0 igl URBAN DEVELOPMENT
RENTON WASHINGTON tlij
III j
--------------------
-------
El El
IL
ILI
PRELIMINARY PLANNED
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE ills
z
N
o
T igi URBAN DEVELOPMENT
RENTON WASHINGTON
Vanessa Dolbee Ws WA oQ ` o
From: Sandy Minniti
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee; Bob MacOnie; Holly Powers; Lori Robinson;
marsha.doviak@kingcounty.gov; Stacy Tucker; Terri Weishaupt
Subject: Springbrook Ridge PUD Lot Line Adjustment LUA09-024
Recording #20111216900001
Lot #1 2923059009 Address 10615 SE 172"d St
Lot #2 2923059148 Address 17249 Benson Rd S
sa+14 M6+U'Ii V
City of Renton I CED I Development Services
1055 S. Grady Way f 6th Floor i Renton, WA 98057
425 430-7200 Opt 4 Fax: 425 430-7231
f.INN
:INN
i1E11kM
-
IN M
0
"man
man 0
�
a u=iu ��
116 i
101
l�
I.s-g"111
1111 111
1
slim
. .
1 u1
him
OR
-bi -R 0
00
'K,
01
INN
'iidil �r�iu��■WE
oi011
NE
NowI I I
IS 1
mall I
_0
Mai1
was 3 17M
-A-3
1`�
a � 1
=
11111
A
mol
1.12,II
INN
>
PRELIMINARY PLANNED
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
0
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE
RENTON WASHING70N
Vanessa Dolbee J ~_ WA o - o
From: Sandy Minniti
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 11:07 AM
To: Vanessa Dolbee; Bob MacOnie; Holly Powers; Lori Robinson;
marsha.doviak@kingcounty.gov; Stacy Tucker; Terri Weishaupt
Subject: Springbrook Ridge PUD Lot Line Adjustment LUA09-024
Recording #20111216900001
Lot #1 2923059009 Address 10615 SE 172"d St
Lot #2 2923059148 Address 17249 Benson Rd S
spy M"IXII
City of Renton j CED [ Development Services
1055 S. Grady Way 6th Floor j Renton, WA 98057
425 430-7200 Opt 4 j Fax: 425 430-7231
CENTURYPACYFIC, LLLP KATHERINE- LAIRD
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT BROKERS ° ADVISORS ° DEVELOPERS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
CRY OF RENTON
AUG 3 0 2011
RECEIVEDMEMORANDUM
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
DATE: August 3, 2011 city of Renton
Planning Division
FROM: Katherine Laird [�11
RE: Architectural Architectural Contract �n nn
ME(�O V Ev
Enclosed please find your copy of the Springbrook Ridge Applicant's Request for
Extension of the Preliminary PUD Approval.
Thank you.
1201 THIRD AVENUE a SviTE 1680 R SFA,ril E, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 757-8890 o FAX (206) 757-7890
KATHERIN ELAIRI)@CENTIIRYI'A CI FI CLP.COM
P�J
In the Matter of Approved Preliminary PUD of: )
SPRINGBROOK RIDGE }
a Preliminary Planned Urban Development )
}
Recitals
Project: LUA 09-024-PPUD, EFC,LLA
APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF THE
PRELIMINARY PUD
APPROVAL
1. On September 24, 2009, the Renton Hearing Examiner issued Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendations in the above -reference preliminary PUD project known as Springbrook
Ridge. (See Exhibit A attached and incorporated by reference). The preliminary PUD, EFC,
LLA was approved with conditions.
2. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code, a preliminary PUD is valid for 2 years and
within that time period final development plans are to be submitted to the Department of
Community and Economic Development for review and approval. RMC 4.9.150.G The 2 year
approval period expires on Spetmeber 24, 2011.
3. The Renton Municipal Code further allows a one-time, 12 month extension of the PPUD.
RMC 4.9.150.G1. [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.]
4. Since the time of the approval of the Springbrook Ridge project, the United States has
experienced a recession and real estate conditions and values have been dramatically impacted
on a local, state and national Ievel. The uncertainties of the economy have delayed the work
required to finalize the preliminary PUD.
5. Applicant submits that the past and continuing economic conditions of the region warrant
an extension of the preliminary PUD period as permitted by the Code.
Request for Relief
For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to RMC 4.9.150.G1, the Applicant respectfully requests that
the approval period for the Springbrook Ridge preliminary PUD be extended for the maximum
period permitted by local law. The extensiori period requested is a 12 month extension to
September 24, 2012. RMC 4.9.150.01.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2011.
CenturyPacific, LP, agent for
Owner of the Springbrook Ridge
Preliminary PUD
*Katerineramer Laird
Executive Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Copies of this request were sent to the individuals listed in the September 24, 2011 Hearing
Examiner decision. See Exhibit A, page 17.
Jen er P lson
D :August 3, 2011
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
September 24, 2009
OWNER: Alex Cugini, Robert Cugini, Crissa Cugini, and Cathy Cugini
PO Box 359
Renton, WA 98057
APPLICANT: Alex Cugini,
c/o Century Pacific
I201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
CONTACT: Katherine Laird
Century Pacific
1201 Third Avenue, Ste. 1680
Seattle, WA 98101
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
LOCATION: SE 172°d St. and Benson Rd S and Benson Drive
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a
mixed -use development including office, retail and residential
uses. In addition, the applicant has requested a Lot Line
Adjustment.
SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to
conditions.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner
on August 18, 2009.
PUBLIC HEARING: 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 August 25, 2009 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, August 25, 2009, at 9:29 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:
8pringbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 2
Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original
application, proof of posting, proof of publication and
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map
Exhibit No. 3:
Too a hic Survey
Exhibit No. 4:
Lot Line Adjustment
Exhibit No. 5:
Site Plan
Exhibit No. 6:
Parking Lot Landscape Plan
Exhibit No. 7:
Tree Inventory Plan
Exhibit No. 8:
Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit No. 9:
Conceptual Drainage Control Plan
Exhibit No. 10:
Conceptual Utility Plan
Exhibit No. 11:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L1
Exhibit No. 12:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L2
Exhibit No. 13:
Landscape Plan, Sheet L3
Exhibit No.14: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SBI
Exhibit No. 15: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB2
Exhibit No. 16: Stream Buffer Averaging &
Enhancement Plan, Sheet SB3
Exhibit No. 17:
Stream Crossin Culvert
Exhibit No. 18:
Image of Arch Culvert
Exhibit No. 19:
Building "A" Floor Plan'
Exhibit No. 20:
Building "A" Floor and Roof Plans
Exhibit No. 21:
BuildinE Elevations, Sheet A103
Exhibit No. 22:
Building Elevations, Sheet A104
Exhibit No. 23:
Site Sections
Exhibit No. 24: Building "B" Site Section Parking &
Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 25: Building "B" Typical Office Floor
Plan & Retail Floor Plan
Exhibit No. 26:
Retail EIevations, Sheet A 107
Exhibit No. 27:
A103
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
Exhibit No. 28:
A104
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
Exhibit No. 29:
A 107
Building Elevations, color, Sheet
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Vanessa Dolbee Associate Planner, Community and
Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The
applicant has requested a Preliminary Planned Urban Development that includes office, retail and residential uses
in addition to a lot line adjustment. The project site is comprised of two lots, Parcel A and Parcel B. The site is
located in the CA zone and the Commercial Land Use designation in the Benson Hill area. The site is surrounded
on all sides by roads and is located at the intersection of Benson Drive S (State Route 515) and Benson Road, on
the north it is bordered by SE 172"d Street. The site is further surrounded by commercial, residential and multi-
family residential uses.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 3
The lot line adjustment would change the sizes of the two lots, Lot 1 would become 1.98 acres and would house
the residential building and would have a net density of 50.26 dwelling units per acre. Lot 2 would contain the
commercial building and would become 1.8 acres.
Some critical areas have been identified on the site and consist of some regulated slopes, medium coal mine
hazards and a Class 4 Stream, which runs through the center of the site. The slopes are not protected slopes.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 15 mitigated
measures. No appeals were filed.
The residential building would be 4-stories (46-feet high). It would contain 107,723 gross square feet with an
underground parking garage with 59 spaces and an associated surface parking lot with 63 spaces to the east of the
building.
The commercial building would contain 35, 552 gross square feet with approximately8,900 square feet of retail
and 17,800 square feet of office space. The parking garage would contain 23 parking spaces with an associated
surface parking with 36 parking spaces. There would be an additional parking lot north of the stream on the
eastern side of the site that is a joint use parking lot that has 35 spaces that can be utilized by either the office
and/or the residential development.
There are 6 separate access locations for the parking garages or surface parking. There is one enter only access
that crosses the stream into the joint use parking lot. There are three access points from SE 172"d Street, two
would be directly to -the underground parking and one for the surface parking. The applicants have further
proposed a vehicular stream crossing that runs through the center of the site, which would add connectivity to the
commercial and residential. This stream crossing would be necessary for site circulation.
There is also pedestrian access and circulation throughout the site that is provided in several ways. The applicants
have proposed a self-service pedestrian trail as an amenity that would run off State Rt. 515 going south of the
residential .building, along the stream and that would be partially in the stream buffer and would connect to the
bridge area on the north side of the stream and further connects to pedestrian crosswalks and pathways through the
parking lot enabling people to reach either the commercial building or the residential building. Sidewalks
throughout the site further connect to street frontages.
There was a discussion regarding modifications that can and cannot be made under the PUD ordinance.
The proposed Springbrook Ridge PUD complies with the City of Renton Development Standards including
Chapter 4.2 zoning districts uses and standards, Chapter 4.3.100 urban design regulations with the exception of
Table A, Chapter 4.4 citywide property development standards and Chapter 4.6.060 street standards.
Vanessa then went through the modifications of the Renton Municipal Code requested by the applicant that are
listed in Table A of the Staff Report. These include the requests for 59 underground parking spaces within the
residential building and 63 surface parking spaces for the multi -family building. Rather than a residential building
with ground floor commercial, the applicant has requested to have the residential building be a stand-alone
building, the maximum number of compact parking spaces to be increased from 30% to 34%, the refuse and
recycle area be reduced to 403.00 square feet from the required 436.5 square feet, the restrictions of critical areas
regarding the removal of trees, the applicant would be allowed to modify the number of trees, they have requested
to remove 35 trees which would be in the vicinity of the vehicular crossing.
The Modifications requested for the Design District D included permitting the front entry of the building to face
the parking areas, a primary entrance of each building would be located in a visual prominent location, connected
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LEA
September 24, 2009
Page 4
to the street by sidewalks to the public sidewalk, standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection,
and utility areas would be enclosed on all sides and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence, pedestrian
overhead weather protection would be provided on commercial buildings in the form of awnings, marquees,
canopies, or building overhangs. The last item, RMC 4-3-100H.2.d should be stricken from the record.
Regarding the PUD criteria, 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. Public Benefits would include the enhancement or rehabilitation of natural features on the subject
property, provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more aspects, including open
space, landscaping, and site and building design.
Under tree retention, the applicant would be required to retain 15 trees, the applicant has identified 35 trees to be
retained. The circulation proposed is above and beyond requirements. Interior paths should be made of different
material than the parking lot surface material.
The landscaping around the residential building and along NE 172"d Street that the applicant has provided is
generously -sized with a minimum of 15-feet. This would provide screening and buffering for the parking lot but
would also enhance the look of the site along the intersection of Benson Road and Benson Drive. They have
further proposed native plantings along the stream corridor and the removal of invasive weeds within that area.
The proposed plan did not include landscaping along the entire frontage of the site and that would be required.
Landscaping islands in the parking area would be between four stalls and would include trees, shrubs and
groundcover.
Site design has included the buffering area and the utilization of the existing grades of the site by using
modulation and building height and setbacks. The orientation of the buildings takes in the downtown views. The
commercial building location creates a "gateway effect". The residential building includes vertical and horizontal
modulation with further division of decks and overhangs, changes of materials and color and stepping of the roof
line. The commercial building design includes structural features that create a smaller scale and the facades are
modulated in this building with changes of materials and colors. The east side of the building steps down to
follow the grades that helps further modulate the building. Various materials have been proposed to create a
pleasant frontage. The project does comply with the PUD building standards.
Katherine Laird, 1201 Third Avenue Ste., 1680, Seattle 98101 stated that the applicant would support the
modifications Iisted in Table A and asked that those be approved. They believe that the walking trail is adequate
to satisfy the entire footage required. The staff report states that there is no lighting plan, there is lighting shown
on the site plan (Ex. 5) there is a legend that shows where lighting would be place. They will provide a more
detailed lighting plan that would show the throw of the light and the candles of the light. There are also two
different height pole lights for the parking lot that have been proposed as part of the site plan.
The site really only works from a circulation perspective if that center crossing is in place. This is a difficult site
due to its triangular shape with a State highway on one side, another main arterial on another side and a residential
neighborhood to the north. It only makes sense to have a fully compatible development of the site, which the city
stressed as being important to them. It would otherwise become a residential island and a commercial island with
difficult access and does not work with the property. Mr. Wagner will give the reasons why the building was
designed with the parking underground and why all of it is not underground. They would ask that the Examiner
approve the parking as it is. The traffic consultant to the project has indicated that the DOT would only allow one
access point off Benson Drive due to the closeness to the State Rt. 515.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 5
Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Bellevue 98004 stated that on the question of the stream
crossing the parking lot on the east side would serve the majority of the offices, if there were to be no auto bridge
and only a pedestrian bridge, that parking lot would also be putting traffic on the residential street, that did not
seem like a wise thing to do. If that area is not developed as a parking lot it has no viable use because of all the
encumbrances that are in that area and the grade. The recognition of the trails being part of the open space_can be
made to work. The grade change from Benson Road (SR 515) to the first level which is three floors below the
main level, the grade change is I6-feet, therefore making more underground parking would be very difficult.
They are trying to hit a market rate housing, most of which is all surface parking and in this neighborhood the
development patterns have been all surface parking. The hope is to address partially that 50% of the parking
would be underneath. On the recycling center, enforcement on these has created some problems within the city,
revisiting recycling center codes would be appropriate. The deck size can be accommodated.
Norm Schick, 16625 100h Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that he had several question regarding this project. He is
concerned about the increased number of vehicles that would be along 106`h. The speed limit is not posted on that
street and would like to see speed bumps to slow traffic. The water along 106"' now runs toward the project. It
runs in a ditch to a culvert to 172"d, water floods the street during the heavy winter rains. There are many elderly
people living on 106'" they walk a lot and don't hear as well as they should. There is a school near the site and the
parking lot to the south being used for illegal activities and then throwing the residue from that into the school
ground. The school bus runs along 172"d Street which is a substandard street, paving is very thin and would break
up very easy with increased traffic. The west side of the project has become a dumping ground for abandoned
vehicles. With the landscaping along SR515 the roots of the trees could eventually cause the pavement to buckle.
There is a coal mine vent in that area and if it is just filled in, an earthquake could cause the area to settle
considerably. Finally, the property values could be lowered due to this project.
Marilyn Rag] , 16805 106'h Ave SE, Renton 98056 stated that she is concerned about the traffic. She understood
that SE 172"d would be extended to the west to Benson Drive. Her concern is with the increase of traffic would
not only affect 172d, but also 1061h which would become the quickest and easiest route to take to the new parking
lot of this development. She would also like to see speed bumps on 1061h.
Kayren Kittrick, CED stated that traffic would find where it will go, speed bumps can be installed, the residents
need to request them however, they make it more difficult and the Fire Department does not like them. This is a
new area for the city and it will have to be watched and studied. There will be expansion on 172"d with full
improvements, safety amenities would be put in like sidewalks, all roads will be maintained by the City. All
unposted roads in the City have a speed limit of 25 mph. There are trees that don't cat sidewalks and the City is
using them more o6n.
Katherine Laird stated that street improvements on 172"4 will enhance the pedestrian traffic and improve the road
conditions. There could be a sign at the exit of the garage that could direct people to go right only, no access to
106`h. There is no retail on the ground floor of the apartment which should lower the daytime traffic in that area.
The coal mine vent has been studied by Icicle Creek Engineers, they have recommended a structural plug and is a
condition of approval for this project. This is going to be all apartments, not condominiums.
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 10:52 a.m.
FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
p� Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 6
The applicant, Alex Cugini, CIO Century Pacific, LP, filed a request for a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development (PPUD) to allow the development of a residential building and a commercial building.
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 41.
3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of
Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-M).
4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter.
The subject site is located on an almost triangular -shaped parcel delimited by Benson Drive South (SR-
515) on the southwest, Benson Road South on the southeast and SE 172nd Street on the north. Two third -
party properties take up the northeast corner of the triangular block and are developed with a daycare
facility. The subject site is vacant and heavily wooded.
6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as
suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses, but does not mandate such development
without consideration of other policies of the Plan.
7. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). It is Iocated in the Urban Design District D
overlay area.
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008.
9. The areas north of the subject site are zoned R-8 (Single Family Residential; 8 dwelling units/acre).
Northeast of the site is an R-10 (Residential; 10 dwelling units/acre) zone. An R-14 zone is located east
of the subject site and additional CA zoning is located east and south of the site.
10. The subject site is approximately 164,828 square feet or 3.78 acres. As noted, the parcel is generally
triangular in shape. The parcel has approximately 390 feet of frontage along Benson Road South,
approximately 690 feet of frontage along Benson Drive South and approximately 540 feet of frontage
along 172nd Street.
11. The subject site slopes downward toward a stream that runs generally east to west across the subject site.
High spots are located near the northeast corner of the site and near the triangle's southernmost corner.
12. The stream is a Class 4 stream. The subject site also contains coal mine hazards and steep slopes. The
applicant proposes using buffer averaging to create two usable building footprints. The applicant has two
bridges crossing the creek with one an internal combined vehicular and pedestrian bridge crossing the
creek. Buffer averaging would result in a loss of 6,756 square feet with replacement of 7,014 square feet.
The applicant will be planting enhancement vegetation at a 1:1 ratio for disturbed areas as well as 32,269
square feet of enhanced or invasive plant replacement.
13. The subject site is forested and contains a mix of red alder, big leaf maple, cottonwood and Oregon ash as
well as a mixed understory of shrubs, fir and blackberry. The subject site contains 440 trees of 6-inch or
greater caliper. Forty trees are within the proposed public right-of-way and 94 are located in critical
areas. Staff calculated that there are 306 protected trees of which the applicant proposes retaining 12.
The ERC required protection of potentially 35 trees. The remaining tree and vegetation cover would be
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 7
removed to allow development of the proposed buildings and parking and circulation aisles.
14. The subject site is comprised of two underlying lots. Lot A is .7995 acres and Lot B is 2.9844 acres. The
applicant has a Lot Line Adjustment pending which would create Proposed Lots I and 2. Proposed Lot 1
would be approximately l .98 acres and be located in the north portion of the site. Proposed Lot 2 would
be approximately 1.80 acres of the remaining southern acreage.
15. The applicant proposes developing two buildings on the subject site. A multiple family residential
building, Building A, containing 97 units would be developed on the northeast portion of the site
generally adjacent to Benson Drive and 172nd Street. A mixed use, retail and commercial building,
Building B, containing approximately 26,700 square feet would be located in the southern portion of the
site adjacent to Benson Drive and Benson Road.
16. The multiple family building would be 4-stories over underground parking. The building would contain
107,723 gross square feet. It would be 46 feet tall. The building would contain 59 stalls in the parking
garage and 63 surface stalls located north and east of the building. Staff calculated the density at 50.26
dwelling units per acre after the lot line adjustment is approved. The building's footprint is complex
running east -west, north -south, east -west again and then south to north. This change in facade breaks up
the apparent length and bulk of the building. Coupled with those major breaks in the facade are
modulations in the major facade elements.
17. The retail -commercial building would be 3-stories. It would contain 8,900 square feet of retail space on
the ground level and 17,800 square feet of office space in the upper two stories. There would be 23
structured parking stalls and 36 surface stalls for this building.
18. Both buildings will contain modulation and articulation beyond the standards of code. There will be
horizontal and vertical design changes and decks, overhangs and varied materials and colors used to
camophlage the bulk of both buildings. Canopies will setoff the entrances of the main areas as well as the
individual retail spaces. Features have been designed to create additional shadow lines to also reduce the
apparent bulk and height of the buildings. Staff noted that while the two buildings provide different
functions, they use common materials and linked landscaping and pedestrian elements. Each building is
designed to transition or reflect the adjacent uses - north are residential uses and south are commercial
uses.
19. In addition to the parking specifically allotted to each building there would be 35 surface stalls that could
serve either the residential or commercial uses. Parking will generally be hidden behind the buildings and
not be visible on the arterial streets. The arterial streets provide less than an aesthetic entry for the.
buildings and circulation is limited so that the major entrances to the buildings was designed to face the
parking areas although this arrangement was offset by formal entrances with canopies. Retail will face
the street.
20. Access to the site will be provided to the site via six locations. There would be three driveways along
172nd Street with two of those dedicated to the garage. There would be a right-in/right-out driveway
along Benson Drive just south of the creek. There would be two driveways along Benson Road South
with a right-in/right-out driveway located south of the creek and an "enter -only" driveway north of the
creek. Staff noted that the roads in the area can handle the traffic but there will be impacts on the adjacent
residential area. Frontage improvements should facilitate traffic and pedestrians, particularly children
with new sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
21. The landscaping requirements of the CA Zone require 5 percent tree retention. The applicant will attempt
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 8
to protect 35 trees if possible providing a retention rate of approximately 15 percent. In addition, the
applicant will be providing 133 new trees and landscaping around the perimeter of the buildings and the
site. Landscaping will also be provided in the parking areas. Enhanced plantings are proposed along the
north boundary of the subject site to screen the low intensity uses to the north from the apartment
building. The surface parking areas will have a minimum of 15 feet of landscape strips. Staff did
recommend additional landscaping along all of Benson Drive. Staff recommended that the final
landscaping plans show drought -tolerant plants and/or irrigation plans.
22. The applicant proposed a path along the western portion of the creek which would connect to the bridge's
pedestrian path. Sidewalks would then provide the rest of the pedestrian circulation. Staff recommended
that the path be continued along the creek to Benson Road as part of the public amenities provided by this
PUD. The applicant had requested a waiver of street improvements along Benson Road (east property
line) to reduce impacts to the creek. Staff noted that the Utility Division believes sufficient area exists for
these improvements and recommended that they be installed to provide a complete pedestrian path. Staff
recommended that pedestrian paths within parking areas be separately delineated.
23. The open space for each unit appears sufficient except for some corner units and the two ground floor
units. Staff has recommended that the decks be enlarged to code dimensions for all units and that the
ground floor units similarly comply with the deck dimension requirements. The applicant has not
provided sufficient common open space. The applicant proposed approximately 2,464 square feet
whereas 4,850 square feet is required. Staff recommended that the project provide the required opened
space.
24. Stormwater will be captured, retained and then released to its natural outlet, the stream, and pre -
development rates will be maintained.
25. Sewer and water will be provided by the Soo Creek District.
26. The applicant has asked that phasing for the project be considered. The applicant has suggested that the
multiple family building would be Phase I and Phase II would entail the commercial building but has
asked that the reverse be considered, too. Staff has noted that the stream mitigation, bridge and pedestrian
amenities on the bridge and along the creek be part of Phase I no matter which element is developed
initially as they are a large part of the public benefit in adopting this PUD.
27. A PUD may not authorize uses inconsistent with those permitted by the underlying zoning but does
permit a modification of standards in some cases. Staff has provided a table showing the requested
modifications from standard requirements. That table is reproduced here:
Table A
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE C
RMC #
Required per RMC
Requested Modi ication
RMC 4-2-12OA: Required Location for
Parking for residential units shall be
To provide 59 parking spaces
Parking
enclosed within the same building as the
within the residential building
unit it serves.
in a underground/ground floor
parking garage and 63 surface
parking spaces for the multi-
family building.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 9
RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated
Note 18._ _ _ �__ __ _r
Stand alone residential and
With Zoning Use Tables
a. General Requirements: Subject to the
ground floor residential to be
density limits of the development
permitted.
standards for this zone and only permitted
within a structure containing commercial
uses on the ground floor. Commercial
space must be reserved on the ground
floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30') in
depth along any street frontage.
Residential uses shall not be located on
the ground floor, except for a residential
entry feature linking the residential
portion of the development to the street.
RMC 4-4-0801~.8.c.iii: Maximum
Compact parking spaces shall not account
All other uses — not to exceed
Number of Compact Spaces Outside of
for more than:
34 percent.
the UC-Nl and UC-N2 Zones
All other uses — not to exceed thirty
ercent(30%).
RMC 4-4-090D.1: Refuse and
Minimum Size: A minimum of one and
403.00 square feet
Recyclables Multi -family Developments
one-half (1-1/2) square feet per dwelling
Minimum Size Requirements
unit in multi -family residences shall be
provided for rccyclables deposit areas,
except where the development is
participating in a City -sponsored program
in which individual recycling bins are
used for curbside collection. A minimum
of three (3) square feet per dwelling unit
shall be provided for refuse deposit areas.
A total minimum area of eighty (80)
square feet shall be provided for refuse
and recyclables deposit areas.
Comment: For this development, the
minimum size required would_ be 436.50
s uare eet.
RMC 4-4-130D.2 Restrictions for
Unless exempted by critical areas, RMC
The allowance of 36 trees to be
Critical Areas —General
4-3-05005 or Shoreline Master Program
removed and associated land
Regulations, RMC 4-3-090, no tree
clearing in a Class 4 stream and
removal, or land clearing, or ground cover
stream buffer critical area for
management is permitted:
the construction of vehicular
a. On portions of property with protected
transportation stream crossings
critical habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K;
as permitted by RMC 4-3-
streams and lakes, per RMC 4-3-050L;
050L.8.a subject to mitigation
Shorelines of the State, per RMC 4-3-090,
identified within the SEPA
Renton Shoreline Master Program
Environmental Review.
Regulations; and wetlands, per RMC 4-3-
050M; and their associated buffers;
Desi n District `D' Requested Modifications
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 10
RMC 4-3-100E.2.a.ii
The front entry of a building shall not be
Front entry of buildings would
oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a
be permitted to front parking
public or private street or landscaped
areas.
pedestrian -only court- and
RMC 4-3-100E.3.a.i
A primary entrance of each building shall
A primary entrance of each
be located on the facade facing a street,
building shall be located in a
shall be prominent, visible from the street,
visual prominent location,
connected by a walkway to the public
connected to the street by
sidewalk, and include human -scale
sidewalks to the public
elements.
sidewalk, and include human -
scale elements.
RMC 4-3-100E.5.a.iii
In addition to standard enclosure
In addition to standard
requirements, garbage, recycling
enclosure requirements,
collection, and utility areas shall be
garbage, recycling collection,
enclosed on all sides, including the roof
and utility areas shall be
and screened around their perimeter by a
enclosed on all sides, and
wall or fence and have self -closing doors
screened around their perimeter
by a wall or fence and have
self -closing doors
RMC 4-3-100G.3.b.i
Provide pedestrian overhead weather
Provide pedestrian overhead
protection in the form of awnings,
weather protection on
marquees, canopies, or building
commercial buildings in the
overhangs. These elements shall be a
form of awnings, marquees,
minimum of four and one-half feet (4-1/2')
canopies, or building
wide along at least seventy five percent
overhangs. These elements shall
(75%) of the length of the building facade,
be a minimum of four and one -
a maximum height of fifteen feet (15')
half feet (4-1/2') wide along at
above the ground elevation, and no lower
least seventy five percent (75%)
than eight feet (8') above ground level.
of the length of the building
facade, a maximum height of
fifteen feet (15') above the
ground elevation, and no lower
than eight feet (8') above
level.
RMC 4-3-100H.2.d
1,000 square foot Public Plaza at the
_ground
590 square foot Public Plaza at
intersection of Benson Drive South and
the intersection of Benson
1080' Avenue SE, with a minimum
Drive South and 108'h Avenue
dimension of 20-feet on one side abutting
SE, with a minimum dimension
the sidewalk.
of 20-feet on one side abutting
the sidewalk. That may be
located just north of the
intersection to accommodate for
existing topographical contrast
at the subject intersection.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 1 i
CONCLUSIONS:
Planned Urban Development (PUD)
1. 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.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a
proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive
Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban
development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development
will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable
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
iii. 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:
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.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 12
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.
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 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.
c. 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)
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1, Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and may be
designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed -use,
commercial, and industrial developments are described below.
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 1. 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 stormwater 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.
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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 13
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 E1bi to v of this Section specify common open
space standards for the residential portions of mixed -use developments.
i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more
dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area
equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to
provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, arid -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:
i. 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
Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building.
ii. 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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 14
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.
iv. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space:
(a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots,
(b) Adjacent chain link fences,
(e) 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 of
at 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 (IV) 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 (Y).
3. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the 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 of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one
year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a
period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device
for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract
with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and
kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the
Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 44-070.
4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but
not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by
the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her
designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060,
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
Springbrook Ridge, PUD
File No.: LUA 09=024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 15
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)
2. It appears that some background on a PUD (Planned Urban Development) is necessary. The fact is that a
PUD is kind of a compact or contract between the property's owner or developer and the City. The City
modifies or relaxes its normal standards such as lot size or setbacks or street dimensions and the
developer agrees to provide enhanced development and, it must be emphasized "AND" public benefit.
The City's Critical Areas ordinances and complementary regulations already protect the natural features
on this site. So the question is whether the proposed development, two separate buildings with substantial
and interesting design features as well as the proposed trail, provide sufficient public benefit.
The buildings are well -designed and. provide more than the required modulating elements. There will be
an interplay of vertical and horizontal elements as well as the use of a variety of materials and colors. All
of these combined architectural elements will soften the appearance of the building and provide the
viewer with buildings with less apparent bulk as well as visual interest. There will be decks on the
residential building and overhangs and canopies on both buildings. The rooflines will modulate and the
facades step inward or change direction. Landscaping all around the project area and in the interior will
provide visual relief. The one intrusive element is the applicant's proposed bridge over the creek in the
interior of the site. While the applicant and staff suggested this enhances the project, clearly, it creates
tradeoffs including the additional intrusion into the creek and its buffer area. It clearly enhances internal
circulation on the site but is it necessary for the two buildings to be tied together by a vehicular crossing
of a creek? The two buildings serve two completely different functions, one residential and the other
retail and office. While the retail offerings might appeal to the residents of the complex, a pedestrian
bridge, a much smaller, less intrusive crossing, could tie those functions together. It appears that the main
selling point of this vehicular bridge is to serve automotive interests and allow parkers to park either north
or south of the creek for access to the office building. It appears staff believes this is an appropriate. And
it might be given the nature of surrounding roads and the limited right-in/right-out limitations on the
driveways serving this site. At the same time, limitations exist for most uses along Benson since free left
turn movements are restricted as they are in other areas of the City such as Rainier. For this tradeoff the
applicant definitely needs to create and welcome the public on trails along the creek throughout the site.
The pedestrian connections, delineations and trail extensions recommended by staff are necessary for this
PUD to provide the necessary public benefit,
4, In most other particulars, as noted, the proposal is well -designed. It takes full advantage of the site's
location and topography to provide an enhanced layout for the two buildings. They are well -separated
providing light and air to both buildings. Views from the site will be enhanced although with the sacrifice
of the dense woods now on the site. The site is zoned for commercial uses but confining the commercial
uses to the southern half of the site reduces impacts on the single family homes north of the site.
Commercial uses could generate a different level of traffic in the evening than residential uses in Building
A which will face those single family uses. The dedication of Building A to residential uses makes sense
to provide a transition to the more intense uses'along Benson Drive. At the same time, the new driveways
along 172nd will clearly create new impacts that the current, forested site does not create. Besides traffic,
the new population will increase the general hubbub. These impacts were envisioned when the
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning were established for this site and area. The new sidewalks and walking
trails will also provide neighbors with safer walking opportunities.
5. The proposed modifications requested for this PUD as denoted by Table A seem appropriate given the
constraints of the subject site. While it appears that the applicant could probably have achieved many of
its objectives and still met code requirements, the site does contain a creek and heavily trafficked
roadways on two sides of this triangular site. The creek, while not of the highest caliber, does cut across
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 16
the site making for challenging development limitations but also an amenity when fully respected. The
buffer averaging and bridge incursion is being offset with appropriate additions to the creek buffer and
vegetation enhancements. Landscaping will be generously provided along the perimeter of the site and in
the interior. Parking areas will be screened. The buildings contain more than ample architectural
detailing.
6. The applicant has requested that the project be permitted to be phased. While the applicant suggests that
the residential component would probably be Phase I, the applicant desires to maintain flexibility. In any
event, phasing is appropriate as long as the creek enhancements, internal bridge, trail, landscaping
elements and all frontage improvements are completed with whichever component is Phase 1. Frontage
improvements along all roads is an important element whether the residential or commercial component
becomes Phase I so that neighboring residents can walk to the commercial aspect of this proposal or
residents of this complex can circulate to the greater Benson neighborhood and as part of the overall
public benefit of developing this property as a PUD as opposed to just meeting CA standards..
In summary, the proposed project appears reasonably well -designed and provides adequate public benefit
RECOMMENDATION:
The Springbrook Preliminary Planned Urban Development should be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Lot Line Adjustment shall be completed and recorded with King County prior to residential
building permit approval.
2. The applicant shall extend the.proposed soft surface pedestrian path from the vehicular crossing
in the center of the site to run along the south side. of the stream and connect to Benson Road
South, an updated site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval prior to Final PUD approval.
3. All pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material
or texture from adjacent paving materials. An updated site plan depicting proposed materials or
texture for pedestrian pathways through parking areas shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval
4. A detailed final landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval that indicates landscaping enhancement along the
entire frontage of Benson Drive South, with the exception of the portion within the stream buffer
area associated with the Class 4 stream on the subject site.
5. The applicant shall submit a detailed final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval, that indicates either 100 percent
drought tolerant plantings or provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan.
6. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting
in addition to building and landscaping lighting if proposed.
7. Prior to building permit approval, for the commercial structure, the applicant shall provide a
refuse and recycling screening detail to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
approval.
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 17
8. The applicant shall provide to the Current Planning Project Manager a revised parking plan that
indicates 4 ADA parking spaces for the commercial development prior to Final PUD approval. - .
9. When the first phase of Springbrook Ridge PUD is to be constructed (either the residential or
commercial building), the final approved stream buffer mitigation plan shall be implemented and
completed, including but not limited to the addition of the soft surface pedestrian trial, two
benches, monument sign, and center site vehicular crossing. The applicant shall complete all
frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of Phase I development.
10. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and/or multi -family building plans to the Current
Planning Project Manager that shows compliance with the 4,850 square feet of common open
space required for the PUD development, prior to Final PUD approval.
11. The decks proposed on the multi -family building, that do not comply with the 5-foot minimum
dimension, shall be redesigned to provide no dimension less then 5-fect. The applicant shall
submit new floor plans for the multi -family building showing compliance with the 5-foot
minimum dimension for private open space to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
Final PUD approval.
12. The applicant shall be required to establish a joint property owners' association for the
development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not
limited to the soft surface trail within the stream buffer and the shared parking lot, within the
PUD prior to Final PUD approval.
13. The applicant shall complete all frontage improvements along adjoining roadways as part of
Phase I development.
ORDERED THIS 24`h day of September 2009.
FRED J. KAUFMAN
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 24"' day of September 2009 to the following:
Mayor Denis Law
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
Dave Pargas, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Renton Reporter
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration mast be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 .m. October 8 2009. 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
Springbrook Ridge PUD
File No.: LUA 09-024, PPUD, ECF, LLA
September 24, 2009
Page 18
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., October 8, 2009.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval b CityCouncil or final rocessin 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 ail
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.
61
AF -
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CITY OF RENTON
AUG 2 4 2011
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Springbrook Ridge
Extension Request
LUA09-024-PPUD, EFC, LLA
DECISION
Summary
The Applicant has applied for a one year extension to submit final development plans. The extension
is approved.
]Exhibits
The following documents were considered in evaluating the application for final plat:
1. Applicant's Request for Extension of the Preliminary PUD approval, dated August 3,
12011.
Findings of ]Fact
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Alex Cugini.
2. Hearing. No hearing is required or held for PUD extension requests.
PUD EXTENSION - 1