HomeMy WebLinkAboutD. HEX Final Decision 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FUR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
10 RE; Avana Ridge PUD ) FINAL DECISION
l i Preliminary Planned [Jrban }
Development )
12 }
13 �'U``���-�QQ�4�, PP, PPUD �
i4
SUM�IARI'
15
16 The appGcant proposes a preliminary pianned urban development far the construction of two multi-
family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcet for a totat of 74 dwetling units. The applicant seeks PUD
17 approval in order to vary from a number of zoning cade standards, incIuding an increase in allowed
building and retaining wall height, a reduction in required roof pitch, a decrease in required parking
18 and a decrease in required private open space. The PUD is approved subject to conditions.
19 TESTIMOI�Y
20
Note: The f'ollox�ing is a sumnzafy� o,f'testimony pravic�ec�,f'or the con��enienee of the reac�er only and
�3 shorrld not be construed as containitzg any findings of fact r�r conclarsions of law. The focus upon ar
exclusion o,f'rr�ry=particZrlar testirnony or hearing e�lic�ence in thrs szcmtnafy� is not reflective �.f'the
22 priority r�r �rob�ztrve ct�nteni of any���c�rticular hearin� evrdc�nce nnd no crssarr�anee is made czs to
23 uccuracy.
�� Rocale Timmons, senior City of Renton ptanner, summarized the proposal. She noted that
recommended Conditions 14 and 15 of the staff repart, requiring dedications far (ight fiYtures, was in
25 error as there is sufficient space praposed for the lights. The two conditions shoulct be stricken. In
response to eYaminer questions, Ms. Timmans noted that property to the east is zoned Residerrtial 8.
2�' She also noted that there has been no indication that the proposal would impair any views. Traffic
PRELIMINARY PLANNED LIRBAN DEVELOPMENT"- 1
4
1 calming features were considered for access roads and in staff s opinion the proposed speed radar
signs were sufficient to contral speeds. There is no public trail system close by. Sidewalk
� improvements are required for the intersection of 172°d and Bensan Rd. S. in order to assure safe
� walking conditions to school bus stops and continuous sidewalk connections to the surrounding
sidewaik network.
4
Rohini Nair, City of Renton traffic engineer, noted that queuing issues an Bensan Road South and
S Bensan Drive South was a major neighborhood concern. The City had the applicant's traffic engineer
� madel queuing and from this it was found that new turning restrictions proposed for the project would
reduce current queuing off of Bensan Road South. A new condition of approval will be submitted by
� staff to require the new turn restrictions. Regarding speeding on 104 and106, it is staffs opinian that
the radar speed si�ns wiil adequateiy address the problem.
&
� Brian Patdar, project architect, noted that as a resuit of project rnodifications necessitated by permit
review the applicant needs ta request a minor increase in the proposed height from 8' 3" floar ta
�p ceiling ta an 8' 6°' floor to ceiling to accornmodate ventilation systems. The east buiiding will stiIt be
under the 40 foot Iimit. The west building will need to be increased in height 1.6 feet for a total of
�1 41.6 feet. No changes are proposed to the raof line. The PUD pracess enables the appticant to
�2 preserve a lot of an-site vegetation and other natural features. There will be no view impacts since
existing trees are up to 60 feet high, talier than the propased buildings. Any existing territorial views
13 r'�'ould be ta the west and would be unaffected by the proposai. In response to examiner questions,
there currently is no on-street parking on SE 172°d St. Mr. Paldar a[so noted that the "eyes on the
14 street" caused by dwellings overlooking 172"�, as weli as mare pedestrians usin� the praposed
pedestrian facilities, would probabty serve to reduce crime.
15
�6 Larry Hobbs, appticant's traffic engineer, nated that the channelization changes that would improve
queuing from the Benson Road S. access woutd be camposed of a left turn lane and a shared left and
i7 right turn lane and a change out in a traffic signal face. With the channelizatian changes the queue
lengths are reduced from 372 feet to 2 i 2 feet and wiit be sharter than pre-development conditions.
1 g The channetization changes doubte vehicle storage space.
19
Doug Gaods, nei�;hbor, doesn't support or oppose the project, he just wants to make sure his concerns
20 are addressed. He has seen a significant increase in traffic in the vicinity over the years. Traffic
backs up all the way fram Puget Drive. He wanted to know why the applicant's proposal to put in a
2� median on t72�'�wasn`t recommended by staff. He doesn't believe that the appiicant's solution to the
22 queuing probtem will be soived by the rechanneling, given the amount af new development in the
area. He fett that more traffic calming measures should be implemented for 104 and 106 avenues,
23 such as speed bumps, however he's not as concerned as much about speed as he is abaut increased
traffic.
24
Molly Moss, neighbor, is against the proposal. She feels that the access to 172°� street will increase
2S traffic on her street (104`�'} as we11 as l OSth and 106th avenues. Currentty the neighborhood has a low
2� ]eve] of traffic. This wi11 be a safety hazard as the streets are currently used by children. Nane of the
PREL[MINAR1r PLANNED �rRB�h` DEVEL4PMENT- 2
1 roads have uninterrupted sidewalks to Nelson Middle School.
2 Jerry Miller, neighbor, noted that the streets impacted by the proposal haven't been adequately
3 described. There's a new development at the northeastern corner of intersection of Benson and 172nd
with several dozen units and this will add to the traffic problem. If the right in/right out 172nd
4 solution proposed by the applicant for 172"d were to be implemented, people would be doing u-turns
on their driveway so he and Anna Miller are opposed to that solution.
5
6 Anna Miller, neighbor, noted that parking from the project will spill onto adjoining streets making
traffic circulation difficult. 172nd is very narrow and traffic is already very poor in the area. In the
� next 5-10 years traffic will be a nightmare.
g Paul Skulstad, neighbor, felt that access to the proposal should be from SR 515 instead of 172°d. The
9 surrounding community doesn't have sidewalks for students walking to and from school. Electronic
radar signs aren't needed. 172"d has a portion that's like a washboard, which slows down vehicles.
�p The traffic analysis for the project doesn't take into account traffic that will be generated by other
projects in the pipeline, including a large apartment complex directly across the street and a medical
11 dental complex. People are having trouble finding parking already in the apartment complex and it
12 hasn't been completed yet. There's also another 21 lot subdivision and another complex on Benson
being constructed. The Benson and Benson intersection needs to be redone. The two left turn lane
13 solution was obvious. There should be a third left turn lane.
14 Karen and Polo Cantu, neighbors, noted that the roads of her neighborhood do not have sidewalks or
shoulders. Her and her husband purchased their home because of the uncommonly spacious lots and
I S quiet neighborhood. She still feels safe walking the streets. The proposed access onto 172"d St. is too
16 close to the 106th Ave. Residents of the proposed apartments will quickly realize that driving through
the neighborhood will be much quicker than driving through the Benson/Benson intersection. A
17 radar speed sign wi(I not reduce the volume of traffic. The traffic study doesn't account for new
development or the impact on 106`" street and other neighborhood roads. Based upon 1.8 cars per
1 g dwelling unit and round up to two cars to account for visitors, the proposed parking is insufficient.
19 The access should be moved from 172nd to SR 515. 172nd St. is inaccurately classified as a
commercial street in the ERC report. It currently primarily serves residential use.
20
Nancy Stanley, neighbor, noted that the 162 unit Trails apartment complex across the street is still
21 under construction and its traffic impacts haven't been fully evaluated.
22 Danny Kumono, neighbor from Kelsey Court condominiums, affirmed that the traffic impacts of the
23 Trails complex hasn't yet been realized as its still under construction. Crime has increased as a result
of the Trails. Cars turning right onto
24 Benson from 172°d aren't slowing down. Visibility is poor because of the road curvature, so there are
25 a lot of close calls in making a left turn. In the evening the BensonBenson intersection is fully
congested and it's not possible to make a left turn. A larger area should be considered when doing a
26 traffic analysis.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3
1
Dan Palmer, neighbor, noted that 104`", l O5t" and 106th has been an oasis of a neighborhood with big
2 yards and yuiet streets. There's currently no through traffic. There's no vehicle polfution. There are
3 people with respiratory problems in the neighborhood who will be adversely affected by the pollution
from increased traffic. He noted there are no sidewalks, stormwater systems or lights on the roads.
4 The neighborhood is full of wildlife and trees and is an important watershed area. High impact
buildings are not compatible with this environmentally fragile area. Transfer of development rights
5 would work well here. The building design is not compatible with the surrounding 60 year and turn
6 of the century homes. Even the new CVC store is more aesthetically pleasing.
'7 in rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the area was annexed into the City from King County in 2008,
which is why the streets don't have sidewalks or street lighting. The site was zoned commercial
g arteriai when it was annexed into the city. That zoning designation allowed 60 du per acre. A
9 subsequent rezone reduced the density to the current(y applicable 20 du per acre. The site serves as a
transition zone from the commercial development to the south to the residential use to the north.
10 1�2°a is classified as a commercial use street because of the transportation needs to the south. The
proposed development will create many of the improvements necessary to upgrade 172"d to
11 commercial use. The City currently has no transfer of development rights program. The design of the
12 project is set by the City's design standards. SR 515 would not be a suitable access point because of
significant change in grade at the southern portion of the site. Several retaining walls are necessary to
13 stabilize this portion of the project. SR 515 is a commercial arterial street and the City limits access
points. WSDOT would also restrict access from the state road. There are also criticai areas that
14 would prevent access from the south. Parking is set by city code based upon the number of
bedrooms, which in this case is 96 stalls. The applicant has requested a two stall reduction. The
15 project site has a significant amount of open space to accommodate wildlife. The applicanf s request
16 for an additional 1.5 feet in building height has been reviewed by City staff. Given the extensive
number of PUD benefits and large amount of open space, staff supports the request for additional
17 height. As to safe routes to schools, it's expected that students will not use 106/104/105 roads to get
to Nelson Middle School. They would use Benson Road to walk safely to Nelson. Molly Moss noted
18 that while student from the proposal may use Benson Road, students residing on 106/104/105 would
19 still be walking their neighborhood roads.
20 In response to examiner questions, Ms. Nair noted that the traffic study included traffic from all
approved land use applications, including the Trails project across the street. The lane configuration
21 will result in improved queuing lengths even with the traffic of the Trails project taken into
22 consideration. Staff is not opposed to having south bound traffic subject to a radar speed sign as well
on 104th and 106th streets. WSDOT may not approve a direct access onto SR 515 because of the
23 availability of other access routes.
24 Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer,testified that the traffic report was prepared pursuant to City
25 guidelines and trip generation estimates from the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
The report was subjected to peer review, which concurred with the traffic analysis. The Trails project
26 was included in the background traffic along with a percentage traffic growth rate required by the
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -4
1 City. The traffic analysis concluded that 10% of the AM peak hour traffic would be heading west
2 (using 106/104/105), which is 4 trips and five trips for PM peak hour. This is only one additional
vehicle every 12 or 15 minutes on the three streets. The radar speed limit sign isn't necessary.
3 WSDOT would not allow access onto SR 515 since other reasonable access is available.
4 Brent Carson, app(icant's attorney, noted that the land use designations of the site could not be
questioned at this point. Many of the concerns of the neighbors concern SEPA issues that haven't
5 been appealed. Given the minor number of trips generated on 106/104/105 and verification from peer
6 review on the applicant"s analysis of this issue, the City has no nexus and proportionality to require
mitigation such as the radar controlled sign.
7
g EXHIBITS
9 The May 10, 2016 Staff report in addition to Exhibits 1-23 identified in pages 2 of the Staff
10 Report were admitted into the record at the May ]0, 2016 hearing. The staff power point
presentation was admitted as Ex. 24. Revised elevations were submitted by the application and
11 admitted as Ex. 25. Ex. 26 was submitted by the applicant and admitted as a color site plan. Ex.
27 were admitted as west building elevations and Ex. 28 as east building elevations. Google
12 maps was admitted as Ex. 29.
13
FINDINGS OF FACT
14
Procedural:
IS
16 � Applicant. Avana Ridge LLC.
17
2. Hearin�. A hearing on the application was held on May 10, 2016.
18
Substantive:
19
20 3. Proiect Description. The applicant proposes a preliminary planned urban development for the
construction of two multi-family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcel for a total of 74 dwelling units. The
21 requested modifications are summarized as follows:
22
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification
23 RMC 4-2-110A Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal includes a roof pitch
24 Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12
Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical
25 Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate
Designations- Roof height.
26 Pitch
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 5
1 RMC 4-2-110A A maximum building height of 3 The proposal includes a height of
Development stories with a wall plate height of 30 46-feet and 5-inches as measured
2 Standards for feet is permitted. from average grade plane to the
3 Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof
Designations- Roof elements.
4 Pitch
5 RMC 4-6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Various: See discussion under FOF
Standards PUD Criteria -Circulation xx: PUD Criteria-Circulation
6 RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Various: See discussion under FOF
,� Design Standards Design District'D'Standards I xx: Design District 'B'Standards
RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a The applicant proposed a total of
g Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking 94 spaces within surface parking
Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to areas. The proposal does not
9 meet code. comply with the minimum parking
�p stall requirements.
� RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit The proposal includes a single
l l and Recyclables area/collection point for every thirty refuse/recycle storage location
12 Standards (30) dwelling units. centrally located, between both
buildings at the center of the site.
�3 RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for A section of the keystone-type wall
14 Retaining Wall Height retaining walls located within front located near the monument sign at
yard/side yard along-a-street the Benson Road/Benson Drive
15 setbacks, and 72 inches for walls intersection is proposed at a height
elsewhere on site. of 5.5 feet. A section of the
�6 keystone-type wall located near the
monument sign at the Benson
�� Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5
�g feet and 6-inches tall.
RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall The current proposal provides
19 Private Open Space have usable private open space for 4,156 SF of private, attached open
the exclusive use of the occupants of space through the use of private
20 that unit in compliance with balconies for some of the units
21 dimensional standards. which does not comply with the
dimensional standards.
22
23
The project site is currently vacant and bisected by a stream. Access to the site is proposed via SE
24 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S.
25 The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property.
26 4. Adeauacv of Infrastructure/Public Services,. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6
1
A. Water and Sewer 5ervice. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
2 provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water and sewer availability
3 certificate from the Soos Creek utility district was submitted to the City with the land use
4 applicatian. Approved water and sewer plar►s from Soos Creek are required to bc
provided during utitity canstrucEic�n permit approval.
S
� B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
7 C. Draina�e. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the praposal mitigates
$ a!1 significant draina�e impacts. Ne�v imperviaus surfaces �vauld result in sucface water
runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage
� Repar�"'} with the praject application {Exhi6it 9}. The stormwater detention and water
l0 quality treatrnent would be provided within a cambined detention/water quality vault
under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined
t I detention/water quality vault would be fal(owed by a media filtration system to
�2 accammodate the Enhanced Water Quality Z"reatment requirements for multi-family
development. Further staffreview will be canducted for final PUD approval.
13
I4 D. ParksJCJpen Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. For parks
impacts, the appiicant will be paying a park impact fee, which is currently assessed at
l� $975.50 per multi-family dwelling unit.
16
i� The proposed development is designed spccificatly to inerease the access and opportunity
for open space and in sheer numbers harbors a significant arnaunt of open space as well.
t$ The project includes 19,795 square feet of community open space in the southern portion
�9 of the site in additian to 49,918 square feet af critical area space. Beyand the space
required for critica! areas, Renton has no public apen space requirements for multi-family
20 deveiopments except for some nonspecific standards in its design regulations. A sma1l
2l fenced aff-leash dog run is provided at the east side af the site between a landscape buffer
2� and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. 1'he multipte open
spaces throughout the site are wetl designed and provide a variety of recreational
23 opportunities both passive and active. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower
2� area of the site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the
open space and the residential developments.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 1
r
1 A centra( path and complementing pedestrian bridge crossing will be constructed to create
2 an access point to the southern community open space from the surface parking lot. The
large area would be ample usable space for passive recreation and special events such as
3 picnics, parties, weddings, movie night in the park, concerks, etc.; thereby promoting
4 comtnur►ity involvement. Additionally, the space would take advantage of and display the
attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the space wauid serve to preserve and
� enhance existing vegetation and naturai character through tree preservatian, removal of
� extensive invasive Blackberries, and replacement with native understory vegetation ta be
maintained thraugh the life of the development.
� The space features a large, central, gently sloping lawr� for casual seating and recreation.
g The lawn is oriented to slope dawn towards an apen pavilian whose intended use includes
perfarmances, and community gatherings. The paviCian is also sited ta capture and frame
`� the attractive territorial views to the West.
10
The applicant has indicated that there is an oppartunity to include interpretive
i � signa�e(inforrnatioi� regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
�2 architecture, etc.) of the propased development at strategic place(s) an site. The use af
interpretive signage wauld result in an increase in public benefit for the overall project.
13 Therefare, a conditian of approval requires the applicant to provide interpretive
14 signagelinforrnation regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
architecture, etc.) of the proposed develapment at a strategic place(s) an site.
l5
16 A resident amenity lounge located on Leve( 1 of the West buildina takes advantage of
�� outdaor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces, barbecues,
and lounge areas far a variety of oppartunities for the residents. The area opens �zp the
3 8 western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings visual interest ta
19 �'hat would norma(ly be considered the "side" elevation of the project.
20
2� E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposa] provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation
system. The applicant has praposed a series of pedestrian connections throughaut the site
22 however it is unclear if there is a differentratian ot materials acrass the drive ais(es
23 (Exhibit 2}. Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition af appraval requires the
applicant to revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian
2`� connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site.
25
F. 4ff-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate aff-
26 site street infrastructure.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEWEL�PMENT- 8
- - I
1
� Based upon the applicant's traffic impact analysis ("TIA"), Ex_ 15, staff have determined
that the project�vil( comply with the City's level of service standards. It is anticipated that
3 the praposed development wauld genecate apprnximately 492 average daily trips with 38
4 AM peak-haur trips and 4b PM peak-hour trips. The TIA assessed traffic impacts on three
affected intersections as required by City standards. The TIA concluded that ail
$ intersectians will operate at an acceptabie level af service with the propased development.
� Staff have also determined that the proposal passes City concurrency standards as outlined
in Ex. 23. Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed
� project and traffic growth in the study area. Traffic signal warranty ana(ysis was also
$ provided at the intersection of SE 172nd St and Benson Rd S. The report states there is no
need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project. The TIA concludes that sight
9 distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172nd St and with
10 vegetation trimtning, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S
(Exhibit 15). ct. The conclusions of the report were accepted by staff and not disputed by
i � a qualitied traffic expert, therefore they are taken as verities. Staff also concluded in the
1� staff report that the proposed circulation system is adequate to accommodate emergency
vehicles and there is no evidertce in the recard ta the cc�ntrary. Payment of traffic itnpact
�3 fees as required by the Renton Municipal Code witt assure that the applicant pays its
14 proportionate share of system-wide traffic improvements.
�$ A major concern of the neighbors was traftic impacts to ]U6 Ave 5E, 104 Ave SE and ]OS
16 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, severa! neighbors testified that these raads are
i� isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic and are not deveioped with
sidew�alks or shoulders that can 6e used for pedestrian traffic. By contrast, the project's
18 access to SR 515, the most likely tharoughfare ta be used by project residents, can only be
�� directly accessed by passing thraugh the Benson Road S./SR 515 intersectian, which is
subject to severe cangestion during the AM and PM peak hour. Neighbors are concerned
24 that this congestion will cause vehicles going to and leaving the project site to drive
�1 through the IOSl1Q4/106 Ave SE roads. A SEPA mitigation measure requires the
installation of speed radar signs for southbound iraffic on 144t" and lOb`" to siow down
�2 some of this new trafftc. Although a review of the surrounding raad netwark shaws that
23 persons may very well choose to drive through lOS/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR 515
intersection a well as other traf�c problems in the area, the applicant's traffic analysis
2`� reveals that the praject will only add five PM peak hour trips and four AM peak hour trips
25 into the 105/104(106 roads. The applicant's traffic analysis was verified by peer review.
Given the expert traf�c analysis prepared by the applicant and the independent expert
26 verification conducted under the peer review, the applicant's traffic anaiy-sis is taken as a
PRELIMINARY PLANNEI3 URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9
1 verity given the absence of any expert testimany to the contrary. With only a maximum of
� five additional trips per hour generated by the proposal, there is no basis to require more
than the speed radar si�ns required by the SEPA mitigatian measures. Neighborhood
3 resider►ts are certainly correct to assert that the cumulative impacts af a11 projects must be
4 cansidered when assessing traffic impacts, but there is nathing in the recard to suggest khat
the speed radar si�n required of the appiicant is less than the appticant's fair share of
� mitigating these cumulative impacts. Case law is very clear in the State of Washington
� that the City has the burden of proof in establishing that any required road irnprovements
are proportional and attributable to impacts created by development. See Bzcrt�n v. Clcrrk
� C"oarnty, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-17 (1998}. Far this applicatian, there is no evidence to
$ saggest that more than the speed radar signs required by SEPA is necessary ta off-set the
traffic impacts caused by the praposal on the l OS1104/10b roads.
9
10 Anather issue freq�iently cited by neighbors was the queuing length at the Benson Raad
S.l5R 51 S intersection. Uncantested traffic analysis conducted by the applicant
t� establishes that with re-channeli7ation measures required by this decision, queue lengths
12 will 6e reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and wi(1 be shorter than pre-development
canditions, even ��hen added #raffic from recently approved development projects is
1� incarparated into the analysis. Since the proposal wiil be improving upon existing
14 queuing conditians at the Benson Road S./SR 515 intersection, no further mitigation can
be required.
15
16 A fe�v neighbors alsa suggested that praject access direetly eanneet to SR 515 instead of
l� SE 172°d St. As testifed by City staff, direct access anto a limited access thoroughfare
such as SR 515 is avoided by bath the City= and the state (which also regulates SR S 1 S
18 access) when reasonable alternate project access is avaitable. Further, direct access would
Ig be highly challenging given the critical areas (stream and coal mine hazard) and steep
grade on the south portion af the praject site. Direct access to SR 515 is not warranted or
20 feasible for this project.
21
Several people also testified about walking conditians to and from schc�ol. Students may
�2 very well be walking to Nelson Middle Schoal, lacated to the north of the praject site.
23 Nelson Middle SchooI can be accessed via Benson Raad S. which has sidewalks between
the school and the project site. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be
2� constructed along the frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk
2� system. However, the frontage along the daycare center at the sauthwest corner of the
intersection af Benson Raad S. and SE 172°d Ave is missing some sidewalk linkage. For
26 this reason, the conditions af appraval require improvements to be made along the day
PRELIMINARY PLANNED CTRBAN DEVELOPMENT -
10
1 care frontage to fill in the missing sidewalk connections. As noted by Ms. Moss, there are
2 still no sidewalks along the 105/104/106 streets. As previously discussed, the proposal
wi(I add a minor amount of traffic to these roads, and for the reasons previously discussed,
3 the speed radar sign required of the applicant adequately mitigates against the applicant's
4 proportionate share of impacts to these roads.
5 A few neighbors testified that they believed that the applicant's traffic analysis did not
6 include traffic generated by other projects. However, as testified by both staff and the
applicant, the applicant's traffic analysis did in fact factor in the traffic of currently
� approved projects as well as a general background traffic increase factor required by City
g standards.
9
�p 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services,
the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. There are two critical areas at the
1 I project site — a Type Ns stream bisects the project site and a high coal mine hazard is located in the
12 southern portion of the site.
�3 A. Hi�h Coal Mine Hazard. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to
address any significant adverse impacts to coal mine hazards. High Coal Mine Hazards are
14 considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain
by mine workings sha(lower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower
15 than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas
16 may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was
performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on March 22, 2004 and January 20, 2009
17 (Exhibits 7 and 8). The studies found that the southern portion of the project site overlays
a historic coai mine known as the Springbrook Mine, along with the opening to the mine.
1 g The study further found that the Springbrook Mine meets the City's criteria for a high coal
�9 mine hazard.
20 Several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry
were included in the lcicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fiil at the
21 mine entry and backfilling with controlled density fill (Exhibit 8). However, these
22 recommendations were based on a former development proposal which included structures
in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is setback approximately 125
23 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as the former
development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational
24 improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected
25 by mining related subsidence.
26 A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring an updated Coa( Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
11
1 adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development
can be safely accommodated on the site (Exhibit 20).
2
3 B. Tvpe Ns Stream. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to address
any impacts to the on-site stream. The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental
4 Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit
10). The report identifies an unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) that bisects the northern
5 and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3-
6 OSO.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow
and lack of fish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from
7 the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) as well as a 15-foot setback from the edge of the
buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging for portions of the
g stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and
9 its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. With the conditions recommended in the
staff report (and adopted by this decision), the proposed buffer averaging and stream
10 alteration conforms to the City s critical areas regulations for the reasons identified at page
14 of the staff report.
11
12 C. Wildlife/Veeetation. As noted in the applicant's habitat assessment, there are no state or
federally listed species on or near the site and there are no rare or unique plant
13 communities on the site. The only wildlife/vegetation subject to protection at the project
site are trees. The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require
14 the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development. As noted at p. 10 of the
staff report, the City's tree retention standards specifically require the retention of 42 trees
�5 and the applicant is retaining 46 trees. As further noted at p. 10, City tree density
16 requirements require a total of at least 132 trees at the project site. A condition of approval
requires that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this standard as the application
17 materials are unclear as to the total amount of trees that will be planted at the project site.
Beyond trees, since there are no wildlife species specifically protected by City of Renton
I g regulations, there is no basis to regulate or restrict the project based upon wildlife or
19 vegetation impacts.
20 D. Compatibilitv. The project is compatible with surrounding development as it is within the
range of densities authorized by applicable zoning standards and is heavily regulated by
21 the City's "Design District B" design standards. As testified by staff, the intermediate
22 densities authorized for the site are intended to serve as a transition between the
commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north. The higher densities of
23 the project site, compared to the northern residential uses, is mitigated by the perimeter
landscaping and emphasis upon aesthetic design imposed by the City's design standards.
24 On the north perimeter of the project, where compatibility issues would be most
25 pronounced, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the surface parking
lot through the use of landscape buffers, building modulation and new proposed street
26 trees. The design may not bear any similarity to the design of the turn of century homes in
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
12
1 the vicinity, but the applicant was required to compiy with Design District B standards and
no one has suggested that staff"s finding of compliance w'rth these standards was in errar.
2
� E. Respiratorv Problems. One neighbor testified that he was cancerned that pollution caused
by increased project traffic would exacerbate the resprratory problems of some neighbors
4 living close to the project site. Without any scientific evidence to substantiate this
assertion, there is insufficient evidence to reasanably conclude that the relatively modest
$ traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate respiratory problems.
6
'7 6. Superiority in Desi�n. The develapment of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than
what would resuIt by the strict application af the Development Standards for the following reasans:
� natural features, overall design, and building and site design. The proposed design provides for the
� retention of the natural grade on site, significant trees and a noteworthy amount of landscaping and
re-vegetation. Additionally, the plan provides far both active and passive recreatian spaces
10 significantly beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed design can provide for the
afarementianed amenities because of the madifications requested for the PUD as autlined in Finding
j � of Fact No. 3. The modificatians appraved by this decision cantribute to and enable the superior
l2 design proposed for this praject by increasing available space for open space and natural site features.
13 �• Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in pages 17-20 of
the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
14
1� CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedurai:
16
I� 1. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-150{F){$) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hear'sngs and make final
decisians an ptanned urban development apptications.
18
Substantive:
19
2. Zonin�lComarehensive Plan Desi�nations. The praject site is zaned Residential Multi-Family
20 (RMF)and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density.
21
3. Review Criteria. A FUD may be pursued by "any applicant" as authorized by RMC 4-9-
22 I50{B), which is interpreted to authorize the applicatian of PUD regulatians to muiti-family
23 development projects. RMC 4-9-1 SO{D} gaverns PUD criteria. Thase criteria are quoted below in
italics and applied through carresponding conclusians of law.
24
RMC 4-9-150(B}(2}: C'orte Provisions That May Be t��Udrfzed;
25
26 a. In appraving a planrred urban developme�rt, the City n�ay mod�any t�f the stcrndaYcl.s of chc�pter-t-
2 R11�1C, chapter-�--�RMC, RMC 4-b-ObO and chapter-�-7 RMC', except as listed in siabsection B3 of
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEWEL4PMENT -
13
1 this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneoZrsly as part of the planned zrrban
development...
2
3 4. As shown in Finding of Fact No. 3, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations
identified in the regulation quoted above with the exception of the Private Open Space modification
4 to RMC 4-9-150.E2. As such, the conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a revised
5 site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150.E.2.
6 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrban development only if it fincls that the
follotiving rec�arirements are met.
7
g 1. Demonstration of Compliance anc� Sz�periority Rec�uired: Applicants macst demonstrate that a
proposed development is in compliance with the parrposes of this Section and x�ith the Comprehensive
9 Plan, that the proposed development x�ill be superior to that which would result N�ithout a planned
urban development, and that the clevelopment will not be zrnduly detrimental to szrrrozrnding
10 pYoperties.
11 5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A),
12 are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity
in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the natural features of
13
the site are protected by open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceeds minimum code
14 standards. The proposal involves innovation and creativity via the integration of critical area open
I S space into the recreational open space of the project site. The project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan as determined in Finding of Fact No. 22 of the staff report. As determined in
16 Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD.
1� As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse
impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
18
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
19 following requirements are met.
20 2. Pz�blic Benefit Reqzrired: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development
21 will provide specifrcally identifiecl benefrts that clearly ozrtweigh any adverse impacts or zrndesircrble
effects of the proposed plarrned urban development, partica{larly those adverse and undesirable
22 impacts to surrozrnding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
the following benefits than would reszrlt fi�om the development of the sarbject site without the proposed
23 planned urban development:
24
25 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject
properry, such as significant K�oodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area
26 wildlife habitats, not otherwise reqz�ired by other Ciry regulations; or...
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
14
1 e. Overcrll Design: Prvvides a planned z�rban dev��lo�ment design that is sziperior to the
d�?sign thal would result from development of the subject proyerly withoztt a planned urban
2 dc�velopment. A superzor deszgn mczy rnelude the followrng.• ...
3
4 6. The proposal provides for public benefit by praviding amenities related to natural features and
5 overall design that significantly exceed code standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These
benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no sigr�ificant adverse impacts
6 associated with the propasal as determined in Finding of FacE No. 4 and 5. The integration of the
� natural features af the site with the recreational/open spaces af the site is particularly w�ell done and
wilt succeed in providing significant aesthetic and recreational benefits to project residents as well as
g retaining a significant amount of green space and vegetation for the surrounding community.
g RMC 4A-150(D): The City may approve cr�nl�znned arrban developmerrt only if it fincl.s thcrt the
10 f�llax�ing rec�uirements are met.
ll •••
l 2 3. Aclr�itiUnal Revie�� �'rrteria:A praposecl pl�rnnec�zrrban devetopment shall crlso be revieu�ed for
consistency w�ith�rll of the fi�llou=ing critericr:
]3 '
14 �� �zlildi»g anc!Sile Design:
15 i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, chaf-acter a»d crrchitectt�ral c�esign along the plcrnnetl arrbcrn
development perimeter provide a szcitabTe transition tn adjacent or al�aatting Iower clensrty/intensiry
��' �ones. Mate��ials shcrll redarce the poteniiat_for lr'ght crnd gln�e.
17
7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at page 21 of the staff repart.
18
RMC 4-9-150(D}; The City may cr�prc�ve a planned zirl�an development anly if it finds thcrt the
14 follow�ing reqarirements ure mc�t.
20
21 3. Adr�'itionczl Review° Criteria: A pro��osed plan�rec� t��-han ctevelopment shczll also he revieti��ed for
consistency��ith a/1 of the folloti��ing critericr:
22
23 a. Building anr�Site Uesign:
z� ...
ii. Interior^Design: Promotes u coordinated site cznr�l�uilclrng desi�n. Ba�ildings in groarps should be
25 t-elatec!by coorclinatec�materials and roof styles, bart contrast shauld l�e provided throughc�ut a site by
the use af'varied matericrls, architectural detarling, bz�ilding orientation a�housrng type,- e.g., single
26 �amily, townhouses,flals, etc.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELQPMENT -
15
1
8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at pages 21-22 of the staff report.
2
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned zrrban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
4
5 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned z�rban developmerrt shall also be reviewed for
6 consistency with all of the following criteria
7 ...
b. Circulation:
8
9 i. Provides sarfficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
sz�icient pedestrian ancl vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the
�p proposed development. All parblic and prrvate streets shall accommodate emergency velzicle access
arrcl the traffic demancl created by the development as documented in a traffic anc�circulation report
� 1 approvecl by the Ciry. Vehicle crccess shall not be un�la�ly detrimental to adjacent areas.
12 9. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as determined in Finding
13 of Fact No. 4.
14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a plarrned zirban development only if it fincls thnt the
follolving requirements are met.
15
16 •�•
3. Additional Reviex� Criterin: A proposed planned zrrban development shall also be revietived for
17 corrsistency with all of the following criteria
18
�9 b. Circulation:
20 ...
21 ii. Promotes safery through sz fficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited
22 driveways on busy streets, avoidance of diffrcult tzrrning patterns, and minimization of steep
gradients.
23
10. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may appYove a planned urban development only if it finds that the
follox�ing reqzrirements are met.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
16
1
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
2 consistency with all of the following criter�a
3
4 b. Circzrlation:
5
6
iii. Provision of a system of walkK�ays which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit,parblic
� walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
g 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
9
10 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City inay approve a planned zrrban development only if it finds that the
following reqzrirements are met.
11
12 3. Adclitional Review Criterin:A proposed planrred urban clevelopment shall also be reviewec�for
13 consistency��ith all of the following criterra
14 ...
b. Circarlation:
15
16 ���
17
iv. Provides s�fe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
18
19 12. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4.
20
RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry mny approve a planned uYban clevelopmerrt only if it finds that the
21 following reqzrirements are met.
22
23 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned z�rban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
24
25 c. InfrastrarctuYe and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, ancl other improvements,
existing and proposed, which are sz�cient to serve the development.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
17
1 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4,the proposal is served by sufficient public
infrastructure and services to serve the development.
2
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrbcrn development only if it finds that the
following reqarirements are met.
4
5 3. Aclditional Review Criteria: A proposed planned atrban development shall also be reviewecl for
6 consistency with all of the following criteria
7 ...
g d. Clarsters or Barilding Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clzrstering,
9 separation of building groups, and throargh the use of well-designecl open space nnd landscaping, or
a redarction in amount of impervious satrfaces not otherwise rec�uired.
10
14. The project's principal PUD characteristic is its integration of clustered buildings strategically
1 I located adjacent to combined and well-designed open space and critical areas as outlined in Finding
12 of Fact No. 4(D).
13
RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry mcry approve a planned urban development only if it fincls that the
14 following reqzrirements are met.
15
16 3. Ac�ditional Reviex� Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be revietivec�for
consistency with all of the following criterin
17
18 ...
19 e. Privacy and Builcling Separation: Provides internal privacy belween dwelling units, and external
privacy for adjacent d��elling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual
2p and acoustical privacy for dwelling zrnits and szrrrozrnding properties. Fences, inszrlation, walks,
barriers, and landscaping are zrsed, as appropriate,for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of
21 the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, an�l for screening of storage,
22 mechanical or other appropriate areas, anc�for the redarction of noise. Windows are placed at satch a
height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sa ffrcient light and air are providec�to
23 each dwellirrg zcnit.
24 15. The criterion is met for the reasons outlined at p. 28 of the staff report.
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned arrban developrnent only if it finds that the
26 following requirements are met.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
18
l
2 3. Additional Review Criteria:A pYoposed planned zrrban c�evelopment shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
3
4
f. Builcling Orientation: Provides bziildings oriented to enharrce views from within the site by taking
5 advantage of topogz�aphy, bzrilding location anr�sryle.
6
16. The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the offsite view vistas afforded
� in the naturally elevated site location. There is minimal orientation toward off site non view areas.
g RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
9 following requirements are met.
10 •••
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposec�planned zrrban development shall also be reviewed for
11 consistency with all of the following criteria
12
13
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are eomplemented by lancl.seaping crncl not
14 designed in long rows. The size of parkirtg areas is minimized in comparison to rypical designs, and
each area relatecl to the groarp of bzrilclings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking,
i s and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
16
17. Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large surface parking areas.
17 Instead the applicant is proposing the use of parallel parking stalls along the perimeter of the
proposed drive aisle. The surface parking design is comprised of 90-degree stalls to make maximum
1 g use of parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The use of
19 compact stalls is minimal and is well under the code-required maximums for compact stall counts.
2p RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each plannecl atrban development shall demonstrate compliance with the
development stanclards corrtained in sa{bsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any
21
overlay districts; zrnless a moclification for a specific development standard has been reqarested
22 purszrant to subsection B2 of this Section.
23 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC
24 4-9-150(E). The proposal is compliant with the standards of the underlying RMF zone for the
reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 23 of the staff report. As a project located in the RMF zone,
25 the project is in the District B design district as regulated by RMC 4-3-100. For the reasons identified
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
19
�
1 in Finding of Fact No. 29 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent wrth all District B design
2 standards.
� RMC 4-9-150(E)(1)» Common Operr Sperce Stanclarc�'.• �pE�n,xpace shall be concentrc�ted in large
usable areas anc�may be designed tc�provide either active or passive recreation. Rec�aizrements for
4 resic�ential, mixecl use, commerczal, anc�irrdzistrial c�evelopments are clescribec�bc�la��.
� a. ResidErntial: For residential deveCoprrrents open space must eqttal at least ten percent(10%) vf the
� develvpment site:s gross land area.
� i. Open s�ace may include, bzrt is nvt limited to, thc�follo��ing:
g (a)A trail that allows oppartttnity fc�r passive recreation within a cYltical area bzrffer (only the sqasare
� footage af the irail shall be inclarded in thc-�oyen space area calculation), vr
�p (b)A sia'ewalk and its a,ssocialed lartc�scape striE�, when abartting the edge�f a critical�rrea bzrffE'r crnd
when tr part of a new pa�blic or privute roac� or
ll
12 (c)A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing of�cial.
�3 ri. Adc�itionally, a minrnaum nrecr eqa�aC to fifty (SO)sc�trarc�feet��er unit of common spaee vr
recreation area shall be provided in a concerrtrated space a,s ilCustra(ed in Figure 1.
14
19. The 19,795 square feet of community space alone exceeds ten percent of the total 164,827
�� square feet af the project area. This space, along with other open spaces provided in the project site,
1� alsa satisfies the requirement of SO square feet per dwelling unit, for a tatal of3,700 additional square
feet of open space.
17
l$ RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private C7pen Space: Each residential urrit in a planned urban development
1 g shall have zrsable private open space (in addition to�arking, starage space, lobbies, anc�corridars)
for the exclzrsrve tise of the c�cczspants of that afnit. Each gr�ound.floor unit, whc>thc�r attached or
20 detached, shc�ll have pt-ivat�� open spczce which rs cantiguozes to the atnrt. The�rivate ��en spt�ce shczll
21 be x=ell t�emarc�atec� and at least fifteen feet {IS') in every dimension (c�'ecks on ttppe�floars can
substitaite for the required private open space). For dwelling units which crre exclusively zapper story
�� zrnits, there shall be deck arens totnlrng at least sixry (6f)) sqzurre.feet in size �s�ith no dimension less
23 than five feet(S').
24 20. Ground related units do not have their own private open space. A condition of approval
requires that the appIicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open
25 space standard of at (east 15-feet in every dimension for all graund related un'rts. Not all upper story
26 residential units have private open space dimensioned at 60 feet. A condition of approva! requires
PRELIMIN�RY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
20
�
1 that the applicant pravide revised elevatians for upper floor units demanstrating compliance with the
2 private open space standard of at least 60 square feet ir► size with no dimension less tf�an S feet.
3 RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation crnd Maintenance of Common Open Space:
4 cr. Installatzon: All common area and open space shnll be land,scaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan sa�bmitted by the Applicants ancl approved by the City;provic�ec�' that commoi7 open
� space conlarning nata�rcrl,features worthy of pYeservatiorr ntay be left trnimproved. Fric�r to the
{ issarance o.f nn,y° occarperncy� permrt, the developer shall,firrnish a security device to the C'ity in an
7 an�oa�nt equal to the pravisions of RhIC-1-9-Ob0. Landseaping shall be pinnted x�ithin one year of th�
date of final a�pr�ovnl nf the ��lcrnned urhan devErlo�ment, and maintcrined far a period of two (2}
8 years thc�reafter prior to the release e�f the secur•iry devzce. A scjcurity devrce for providing
9 maintenanc� of landsca/�ing may be waived rf a land,scaping mar"ntenance contraci with a repz�table
landscaping.firm ricensed to do hzesiness in the Ciry of Rentorr is executed and kept active for a twv
10 (2)year perzoc�. A copy of such cc�ntrcrcf slrcrll be kept can frle with the Dc�velopment Services Uivision.
11 h. Maintenanee: Lcrnclseczprng shull be maintciined J�zrrsuant to reqzrirements o f RMC'�--1-070.
1� 21. As Conditioned.
13
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installatian and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
14
cr. Installatir�rr: Prior to the issuance �f any occzrpancy pef�mits, all common,fac°idities, inclarding hut
�5 not lirnited to ritilities, .storm drerinage, streets, recrention facilitres, etc., shcrll be complet�id hy the
l� devc�loper or, if cleferrec� by the PlanningBtcilding/Pzrblic Works Aclministrator or his/hc�r tles�ignee,
assrtred thracrgh a secur�ty de��ice ta thc� C'ity ec�aral to the provisions o}�RMC�-9-060...
17
22. As Conditioned.
18
1� RMC 4-9-i50(E}(4): Instaltation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
20 "..
21 6. Maintc�nancc�: �111 common facrlities not dec�icatc�d to the C'ity�shr�ll l�e permanently maintained by
the plannec� urban developyrzent awrrer, if there is only ane otiv»er, or by the properry owners'
22 associatit�n, or the agent(s) therenf. In the event thnt szrch faczlities are not mcrintainec� in a
��, r•esponsible mcznner, as dc�termined by the Citv, the Czry shcrll have the rzght tn providc�for the
maintenance ther��of and hill the owneY c�r praperry owners' association accardrngly. Such bill, if
2� arnpaic�', shall become a lien a�ainst each inc�ividacal property.
25
23. As canditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT' -
2I
,
1 DECISION
� The proposed preliminary PUD meets all applicable criteria quoted in this decision and far that
� reason is APPROVED. Requested revisions to deveiopment standards identified in Finding af Fact
No. 3 are all approved except for revisions to RMC 4-9-150.E.2. The applicant's request for an
q. additianal 1.5 feet in building height for the west building as proposed in Ex. 27 is also approved.
The propasal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
5
� 1. The applicant shalt comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination ofNon-Si�nificance Mitigated ERC �ddendum, dated April 7, 2016.
� 2 The applicant shall be required to recard forma] Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in
g order to ensure the proposed buildings are nat bui(t acrass property lines. The instrumertt
shal! be recorded prior ta building permit approval.
� 3. The applicani shali be required to submit a detailed tandscape plan ta the Current
1� Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approvat complying with RMC 4-
4-070.
1 I 4. The applicant shali be required to subrnit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132,
�2 two-inch caliper, trees (ar the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those
trees located within the Native Grawth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan
13 shall be subrnitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
14
5. The appl'scant sha]f submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a mmimum three-foot
15 landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining wails abutting, or v�=ithin,
public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover
S� (trees are optional} in conformance with the standards af RMC 4-4-O70F 1�, Perimeter
�� Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan shall be submitted ta, and
approved by,the Current Plannmg Froject Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
i g 6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in
1� RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively irnpact the
function of the stream. The revised rnitigation plan shall be submrtted to, and approved
20 by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering perrnit approva(.
21 7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigatian plan which addresses the criteria faund in
RMC 4-3-050.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the
�2 €unction of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by,the Current Planning Praject Manager prior t4 engineering permit approval.
23
8. The applicant shatI establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the
24 site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rai[ fencing and signage
along the outer edge of the buffer. The Fina1 Mitigation plan shall include all
25 specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
�6 Current Pianning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVEL(�PMENT' -
22
1 9. The applicant shall be required to pravide, to the Current Planning Project Mana}�er, tree
retention inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually
z far two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspectionfmonitoring reports shall
3 identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditians and
prescribe mitigation.
4 20. The appiicant shall pravide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating
� elements {trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.} of the proposed devetopment at
a strategic place{s) on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted ta, and
6 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permitlFinal Plat
approval tivhichever comes first.
7
11. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for
8 all fencing on site. Ail fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the
architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted to,
� and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building perrnit approval.
1Q 12. The applicant shall provide a lighting p]an that adequately pravides for public safety
without casting excessive glare Qn adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit
Il �.�V1e�,, p�destrian scale and down lighting shall be used in all cases ta assure safe
1� pedestrian and vehicular rnovement, unless alternative peclestrian scale lighting has been
approved administratively ar is specifically listed as exempt from pravisions (ocated in
13 RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
14 13. The applicant shail eliminate the proposed access restr'rctions atong SE 172nd St in order
to provide full access along SE 1�2nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and
15 approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approvat.
1� 14. Prior ta the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not
limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by
17 the develaper or, if deferred by the PlanningBuilc�ing/Public Works Administrator or
�g his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of
RMC 4-9-060.
1� 15, A{1 common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the
20 planned urban development owner, if there is oniy one awner, or by the property ou.�ners'
association, or the agertt{s}thereaf. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a
21 responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right ta provide for
the maintenance thereof and bill the o�vner or property awners" association accordingiy.
22 Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a Eien against each individual praperty.
23 16. The appIicant shall create a pubtic outreach sign in caardination with City of Renton to
communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and
�� appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone
2� area; and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shalI be placed on site
prior to construction commencement.
��
PRELIMiNARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
23
1 17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private
2 open space standard of at least I S-feet in every dimension for all ground related units.
The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
3 Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
4 18. The applicant shall provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private
open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet
5 for all upper story units. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by,
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes
6 first.
� 19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the deve(oper shall furnish a security
device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping
g shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban
development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the
9 security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be
�� waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed
to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A
11 copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division.
12 20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural
elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least
13 four and one-half feet (4-l/2') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
14
21. The app(icant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting
15 entrances and pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along SE
172nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted
16 to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to bui(ding permit
I� approval. Staff is aware there may be topographic challenges with entrances along SE
172nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or demonstrate
18 separate entrances are not feasible prior to bui(ding permit approval.
19 22• The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include
a roo£ The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
20 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
21 23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materiais for all
pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site
22 plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Pianning Project Manager prior to
building/engineering permit approvaL If this condition of approval is met the proposal
23 would satisfy this standard.
24 24. The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to
25 ensure durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building
26 permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
24
1 25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather
2 protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures,
contrasting materials, and/or special detailing along SE 172nd St. The revised elevations
3 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval whichever comes first.
4 26. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current
5 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include
color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa�ade treatments, retaining wal(s, raised
6 planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Acceptable materials include a
combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone,
� steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion
g of the Administrator.
27. The current left turn and right turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 515
9 shall be rechanneled by the applicant to one left turn lane and one combined left turn/right
10 turn lane and the applicant shall also modify the light signal at the Benson Road
South/SR 515 to accommodate the re-channelization.
Il
12
DATED this 24th day of May, 2016.
13
14 ` �--�-"_r �..-----�'�
- ��_ __•-''---�"�_- _..
Phi!'A.nlhrechts
IS
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
17
18 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
19 �C 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
20 Renton City CounciL RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) ca(endar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
2� A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
22 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —
23 �tn floor, (425) 430-6510.
24
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
25 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
26
PRELIMiNARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
25