HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision Subdivision and PUD -- Whitman Court II 14-0002951
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Whitman Court PUD
Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban
Development
LUA14-000295, ECF, PP, PPUD
))))
)
)
)))
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to subdivide a 5.12 acre parcel into 41 lots to accommodate
40 zero lot line townhomes in ten separate buildings and a commercial bank. A planned urban
development (“PUD”) is proposed in order to vary lot, landscaping street, setback, parking, design, and
refuse and recycle standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
Ms. Rocale Timmons, Department of Community and Economic Development, stated that the subject
site forms an L-shape, is approximately 5 acres, is zoned commercial arterial, and contains a category 2
wetland as well as a class 4 stream. The site is flat topographically, sloping down from the northeast to
the southwest with an approx. 18-foot change in elevation. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant has
requested a preliminary planned urban development, or PUD, as well as a preliminary plat for 41 lots
that would be used for 40 homes in addition to an approx. 2,600 foot commercial bank with drive
through lanes.
Ms. Timmons stated that staff has received one comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries
Division with questions related to the proposed wetland enhancement plan and that is the only comment
that the proposal has received. On March 24, 2014, the environmental review committee issued a
determination of non-significance with two mitigation measures. One measure is related to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 2
recommendations within the provided geotechnical report, and one is related to erosion control in
compliance with the current King County Surface Water Design Manual. The appeal period was from
April 4 to April 18, 2014, and no appeals were filed.
Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant proposes 40 homes, which would mean approximately 11.1
dwelling units per acre. The residential units would be contained within ten separate buildings, and lot
sizes are to range from 814 square feet to approx. 1800 square feet. Access to the sites would be via
Whitman Court NE, and there would be secondary, limited access via NE Fourth Street. The proposal is
for 102 parking spaces on site; the residential units would have garage parking within the structure.
There would be 16 surface parking stalls for commercial parking, and there would be 6 auxiliary
parking stalls adjacent to a proposed drainage facility. The residential units would be approx. 35 feet tall,
and the proposed commercial structure would be approx. 30 feet tall. There is an existing storm water
facility on the site; it contains a concrete retaining wall. The mitigation project that came with the Ribera
Balko short plat that included this facility has been abandoned. The applicant proposes a plan within
their project to enhance the critical areas on site, which would include approx.18,000 square feet of
enhancement in addition to approx. 7,200 square feet of enhancement of the existing buffer that was
mitigated in the Ribera Balko short plat.
Ms. Timmons said that based on comments from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, staff
has recommended a condition that requires the applicant provide baseline information for the existing
mitigation plan that was abandoned. Ms. Timmons stated that Staff found the proposal does comply with
the PUD applicability standards outlined in RMC4-9-150 if all recommended conditions of approval are
met. Staff believes the development of the site in the proposal results in a superior design than that which
would result from a regular, strict application of the development standards; this belief is based on the
provisions in the proposal for enhancement to critical areas, the plan in the proposal for additional public
facilities that would not have been required by code, and the overall design of the PUD itself. Staff found
that the utility services, emergency services, and other improvements are sufficient to serve the proposed
project if all recommended conditions of approval are met. Staff asks (1) that the applicant revise the
road lay out to make the proposed internal road system a private road network, and (2) that there be a
separation for pedestrians as well as a separation for driveways on the site. Ms. Timmons stated that the
applicant has expressed concern about the necessity for separation for driveways.
Ms. Timmons stated that, with respect to safe routes to school, staff found that portions of the walk from
the proposed site to the high school are without a designated walkway, and staff has recommended that
the applicant demonstrate that there are safe walking conditions from the site to the school. Students
would be required to walk from the site to the school because the school is 1.5 miles from the site, which
is the threshold for walking to school. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant is compliant with the
underlying zoning standards for the commercial arterial zone. Staff supports all of the modifications
requested with the exception of one for lot coverage; the applicant would like the flexibility to vary the
standard for lot coverage beyond 75%, but Staff does not support that given the need for private, open
space on the lots, thus staff recommends denial of that specific modification.
Ms. Timmons stated that with respect to design standards, the proposal does comply with the design
district D standards if all recommended conditions of approval are met. Specifically, staff has requested
that the applicant enhance landscaping/screening along northeast Fourth Street for the proposed bank.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 3
The proposal is compliant with the development standards that are specific to PUDs with the exception of
the standard for private, open space, which is required to have dimensions at 15 feet. The proposal does
not meet this requirement, and staff has recommended a condition of approval to address this deficiency,
although the applicant has told the staff since the recommendation was provided that this standard would
be difficult to achieve. Staff found that the proposal is compliant with preliminary plat review criteria if
all recommended conditions of approval are met. In summary, staff recommends approval of the
Whitman Court PUD subject to 34 conditions of approval.
Mr. Steve Lee, Development Engineering Manager, clarified that this proposal has adequate fire,
utilities, and other access amenities, and the proposal includes the necessary off-site traffic measures. Mr.
Lee stated that Ms. Timmons mentioned that the applicant has an issue with recommendation of approval
number 14, and Mr. Lee explained that the recommendation was made when road B was going to be
public, but the proposal has changed to make road B private, thus it is not necessary for there to be the
separation that is required in recommendation 14.
Applicant Testimony
Mr. Evan Mann, ESM Consulting Engineers on behalf of the Whitman Court PUD, stated that the
proposal has made an effort to have as much pedestrian access on the site as possible. The project is
intended to allow home ownership within Renton, and this home ownership will anchor the area in a
beneficial, sustainable way. Mr. Mann stated that the original critical area mitigation plan was not
completed; instead, it was constructed but maintenance was not performed. This proposal plans to
improve the critical area beyond what was originally proposed, addressing the issue of the earlier,
unfinished mitigation. Mr. Mann stated that the project would not have any adverse, increased impact on
critical areas. The proposal will mitigate for the work that was done on the wetlands when the short plat
was originally approved.
Mr. Mann stated that the applicant concurs with condition of approval number 1. The recommendations
from the geotechnical report will be incorporated as the project proceeds with construction. The applicant
has prepared a letter with some additional information with regard to several conditions of approval,
including condition number 2. The applicant concurs with condition number 3. Mr. Mann clarified with
respect to condition of approval number 4 that the proposal currently plans to provide signage for the one
overlook. Other areas of natural openings will be available, but there is no formal signage proposed in
those locations. With respect to condition number 5, the applicant wants to point out that the trail is
major public amenity that enhances the overall pedestrian network in the community. The applicant
concurs with condition number 6. Mr. Mann stated that condition number 7 is not really necessary, but
they will provide the visual barrier that is recommended. The applicant concurs with condition number 8
as well as condition number 9.
Mr. Mann stated that the applicant has provided a revised site plan to staff since the Staff Report was
prepared that incorporates many of the changes that are recommended in condition number 10, condition
number 11, and condition number 12. The applicant concurs with condition number 13. In regard to
condition number 14, that has been removed for the reasons that Mr. Lee explained. In regard to
condition number 16, the applicant reached out to the school district, and the assistant director of
transportation said that all schools would be bussed without regard to distance, thus designated walkways
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 4
for walking from the site to the school is not necessary, and the applicant requests therefore that condition
number 16 be removed. In regard to condition number 20, the applicant no longer feels that their request
for flexibility in lot coverage is necessary, and they strike their request from the proposal. In regard to
condition number 21, the applicant is working with waste management to prepare a plan. In regard to
condition number 25, curb cuts will be provided when possible. In regard to condition number 32, the
applicant plans to use the administrative process to address this condition.
Mr. Paul Ebensteiner stated that he is one of the owners of the property that has put this proposal
together, and he spoke about his experience in planning developments like this. He submitted to the
record a letter dated May 23, 2014, and it was admitted. The letter gives background information on the
property, responds to the comment from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division, and addresses
the conditions of approval that staff recommended. Attachment 5 to the letter is the email from the school
district assistant director of transportation.
Mr. Brett Conway, the architect for Washington Federal, asked, in regard to condition number 22,
whether there was latitude for the discussion of security in alignment with the screening of that area. In
regard to condition number 26, that has already been provided in the site plans. In regard to condition
number 27, it is not in the un-colored exhibits but the bank facades do have contrasting materials
Ms. Timmons stated that condition number 22 has flexibility, but the intent behind the condition is to
have diverse vegetation that includes shrubbery as well as trees. The only impact from this project on the
wetlands would be from the soft surface trail. In general, the enhancements that are proposed are to the
benefit of the public. Ms. Timmons stated that staff is okay with modifying the first sentence of condition
number 2. In regard to condition number 4, staff believes that signage at the one, northernmost overlook
would be sufficient in this case. In regard to condition number 7, staff has already made the buffer shorter
than is regularly required. Staff is okay with a modification to condition number 16. In regard to
condition number 25, staff is aware that there needs to be flexibility, and it is possible to have some
shared curb cuts. In regard to condition number 32, this condition can be modified administratively if
necessary. In regard to condition number 27, although the bank facade will have contrasting materials,
Staff believes there are opportunities to provide addition visual elements to the facade, and the condition
remains important.
EXHIBITS
Exhibits 1-19, identified at p. 2 of the May 20, 2014 staff report, were admitted into the record at the
May 27, 2014 hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the May 27, 2014
hearing:
Exhibit 20 letter from Mr. Ebensteiner dated May 23, 2014
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 5
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 5
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicants. SB Ribera Balco LLC.
2. Hearing. The hearing on the applications was held on May 27, 2014 at 11:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat to subdivide a 5.12 acre parcel
into 41 lots to accommodate 40 zero lot line townhomes in ten separate buildings and a commercial
bank. A planned urban development (“PUD”) is proposed in order to vary lot, landscaping street,
setback, parking, design, and refuse and recycle standards.
The project site is vacant. The development would be comprised of 10 separate multi-family residential
structures resulting in a density of 11.4 du/ac and one commercial building. The subject site is located on
the southwest corner of the intersection of NE 4th St and Whitman Ct NE. The commercial lot would be
accessed from NE 4th St and the remaining residential development would gain access from the existing
portion and proposed extension of Whitman Ct NE. There is a Category 2 wetland and Maplewood
Creek located on the western portion of the site. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetland
onsite and provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with enhanced
pedestrian and vehicular circulation, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping. Studies include a
stormwater report, traffic study, wetland delineation and enhancement plan, and a geotechnical report.
The proposed development would result in approximately 1,800 cubic yards of cut and 8,500 cubic
yards of fill.
The applicant requests the following development standard modifications through the PUD process:
Table A: Requested Modifications from RMC
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification
RMC 4-2-080 Conditions
Associated With Zoning Use
Tables, Note 18.
Residential uses are only permitted
within a structure containing
commercial uses on the ground floor.
Commercial space must be reserved on
the ground floor at a minimum of
thirty feet (30') in depth along any
street frontage. Residential uses shall
not be located on the ground floor,
Permit standalone
residential with units
located on the ground
floor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 6
except for a residential entry feature
linking the residential portion of the
development to the street.
RMC 4-2-120A Development
Standards for Commercial
Zoning Designations- Lot
Size
The minimum lots size for lots created
after November 10, 2004 is 5,000
square feet.
Permit lots sizes ranging
from 814 to 1,497 square
feet in size as shown in
Finding of Fact 12 above.
RMC 4-2-120A Development
Standards for Commercial
Zoning Designations-
Setbacks
Setback requirements in the CA zone
are as follows: 10 feet minimum for
the front yard but may be reduced to
zero feet through the Site Plan Review
process provided blank walls are not
located within the reduced setback; a
15 foot maximum front yard setback;
and no rear or side yard setbacks
unless the property abuts a residential
zoned property then the setback is 15
feet.
Proposed Lot 41 would
have front yard setback of
28.5 feet. Proposed Lot
34 would have a 10-foot
side yard setback from the
abutting residential zoned
property line.
RMC 4-4-090D Refuse and
Recyclables
The refuse and recyclables deposit area
and collection points for multi-family
residences shall be apportioned,
located and designed as follows a total
minimum area of eighty (80) square
feet shall be provided for refuse and
recyclables deposit areas.
The applicant is proposing
individual curb-side pickup
for residential units.
RMC 4-6-060F Street
Standards
Various: See discussion in staff report
Table C: PUD Criteria - Circulation
Various: See discussion in
staff report Table C: PUD
Criteria - Circulation
RMC 4-4-070F.4
Landscaping Standards
A fifteen-foot (15') wide partially sight-
obscuring landscaped visual barrier, or
ten-foot (10') wide fully sight-obscuring
landscaped visual barrier, is required
along the common property line.
The eastern portion of the
southern property line
would have a 5-foot visual
barrier between the
proposed development
and the abutting R-10
single family development
to the south.
RMC 4-4-080F, Parking,
Loading, and Driveway
Regulations
Bank uses are limited to a maximum
number of parking stalls based on a
ratio of 5 parking stalls per 1,000
square feet of net floor area.
Residential uses are limited to a
maximum number of parking stalls
The proposal exceeds the
maximum parking stall
allowance (13 stalls) by
three stalls for the bank
use and residential
maximum parking stall
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 7
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 7
based on a ratio of 1.75 parking stalls
per residential unit. Additionally, 5
stacking spaces per drive-thru window
are required unless otherwise
determined by the Planning Director.
allowance (70) by 16
parking stalls. The
proposal would only
provide stacking space
sufficient for three cars in
each lane.
RMC 4-3-100 Urban Design
Standards
Various: See discussion in Table E:
Design District ‘D’ Standards
Various: See discussion in
Table E: Design District ‘D’
Standards
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There is an
existing water main in NE 4th St and in Whitman Court NE. Sewer service is provided by the
City of Renton. Sewer service is provided by the City of Renton. There is existing sewer
main in NE 4th St and on Whitman Ct NE.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all
significant drainage impacts. The site is located within the Cedar River drainage basin. The
site receives drainage from properties to the north. Currently runoff is collected by a series of
catch basins and routed to a detention system/water quality pond, on the southern portion of
the site, which is treated and detained prior to discharge downstream. This discharge location
is near the southern most property line into Maplewood Creek. Drainage leaves the site and
runs approximately 900 feet before tapering down to a smaller swale. Drainage then
continues to flow southward for another 300 feet, then spilling into a drainage field, and
enters into a 12-inch storm drain and eventually into a ravine more than ¼ mile from the
subject site.
The applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by ESM, dated February
18, 2014 (Exhibit 8). The report also includes the previously approved drainage report. The
report states that the runoff from the proposed project would continue to be collected and
conveyed by a catch basin/pipe network to the existing detention pond. The proposed facility
would also continue to discharge into the onsite stream. Through the Ribera Balko Short Plat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 8
(Exhibit 16) staff has treated the proposal as vested to the 1998 King County Surface Water
Design Manual which includes standards for stormwater detention and water quality. The
existing 40,754 cubic foot stormwater detention/water quality pond was previously approved
and constructed in the southwest portion of the site in anticipation of future development.
The applicant has limited impervious surfaces in order to ensure the existing volume of the
stormwater pond could accommodate proposed runoff. According to Appendix A of the
Drainage Report (Exhibit 8) the pond volume was required to be 38,887 cubic feet.
Therefore, the constructed pond is oversized by approximately 4.8%. According to the
provided report the pond volume required for the current proposal is less than the previously
approved TIR’s required volume.
The report states that the project should not pose significant negative impacts to the
downstream drainage course. The drainage report is acceptable for preliminary review. The
report will be reviewed in full detail at the time the project is submitted for construction
permit. The applicant will be required to submit a final comparison between the approved
drainage facility (constructed for the Ribera Balko short plat) and the proposed development
prior to construction permit approval. The applicant should take note that the geotechnical
report (Exhibit 7) mentions that much of the site is underlain by fill material not suitable for
infiltration. It is also anticipated that perched ground water could be encountered in
excavations during construction. The contractor would be required to be prepared to
intercept any ground water seepage entering the excavation and route to suitable discharge
location.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. As required by
City Code, the applicant will be required to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. The fee
would be used to mitigate the proposal’s potential impact to City’s Park and Recreation
system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Multiple open
spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational
opportunities both passive and active. The applicant has provided approximately 20,000
square feet of common open space in the form of seven separate open space lawn/plaza areas,
which exceeds minimum code requirements by 18,000 square feet. However, the proposal
does not meet minimum private open space requirements and the conditions of approval
require this deficiency to be remedied.
E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian
circulation system. The applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would
include the extension of public sidewalks and landscape planters along Whitman Ct NE.
Internal to the site pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the
internal street system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 9
throughout the development including cross walks and connections to parking areas and site
amenities. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the pedestrian circulation system
throughout the development would be well designed and would encourage walkability
throughout the neighborhood, potentially reducing the vehicular traffic and impacts on the
neighboring community.
F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the
proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The
public works department has reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed street
improvements, including street alignment, and recommended approval as conditioned by this
decision. The proposal includes a looped street system to provide access to the site resulting
in a superior circulation pattern to that of a cul-de-sac. The project would provide sufficient
vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and private streets could
accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by the development if all
conditions of approval are complied with. The applicant is proposing to provide access to 16
of the 40 residential units from alley access ways (Proposed Lots 1-10 and Lots 15-20).
G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal fully mitigates all off-site traffic impacts. The
applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated November 25,
2013 (Exhibit 9). The report states that the proposed development would generate 504 trips
average weekday vehicle trips (including 131 passerby trips); 45 weekday peak hour AM
trips (including 9 passerby trips); and 85 weekday peak hour PM trips (including 26 passerby
trips). The report also analyzed the level of service at the following intersections: NE 4th
St/Bank driveway, NE 4th St/Whitman Ct NE, & Whitman Ct NE/ Bank driveway/Post
office driveway. The traffic study states that these intersections will continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service. Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated
by payment of transportation impact fees as required by City Code.
H. Walking Conditions to/from School. Children will be bussed to all schools that serve the
project site, so walking conditions is not an issue. See Ex. 20, att. .
5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, the
only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. As previously noted, wetlands and a creek
are located at the project site. The applicant submitted a Wetland Delineation (Exhibit 5), prepared by
Shannon Wilson, Inc. (dated September 7, 2006). The report identified two wetlands on site (Wetlands
A and B) and stream (Maplewood Creek). Wetland A (30,612 square feet) is a Category 3 wetland
located along the western property boundary and is associated with Maplewood Creek. Wetland B
(1,738 square feet) is also classified as a Category 3 wetland, however due to its small size considered
exempt. Maplewood Creek was also delineated on the site and it flows in a southerly direction through
the west side of the property and is classified as a Class 4 stream.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 10
According to the Wetland Delineation Report, Wetland A was primarily vegetated with a variety of
shrubs and trees, including: reed canary grass, bent grass, hard hack, red osier, dogwood, willow,
ninebark, and red alder. Wetland B was vegetated with willow, snowberry, and Himalaya blackberry.
The Ribera Balko short plat (LUA02-129) established Tract A which included all of the critical areas on
site (Exhibit 16). The constructed Ribera Balko Short Plat included approximately 5,912 square feet of
unavoidable impacts to the wetland/stream buffer in order to construct the existing stormwater pond.
Additionally, the roadside ditch along NE 4th St was enclosed in a conveyance.
The applicant submitted a copy of the approved Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan, dated
March 27, 2007, for the Ribera Balko Short Plat impacts (Exhibit 6). The plan mitigated buffer impacts
caused by the existing stormwater pond and mitigated tributary impacts caused by the enclosing of the
NE 4th St ditch into a conveyance system. The planting plan was installed in September of 2008.
However, since the time of installation the property and the mitigation project were abandoned. The City
received monitoring reports quarterly for the first year and has not received a monitoring report since
2010. The City has been unable to determine the success of the installed mitigation project. While the
applicant is not proposing any additional impacts they are proposing an enhancement plan (Exhibit 3) to
increase the function and value of the critical area system and bring current the deferred maintenance.
Approximately 18,047 square feet of enhancement is proposed in addition to approximately 7,250
square feet of existing buffer that was formerly enhanced would be maintained and monitored in
coordination with the enhancement plan for the proposed PUD. As part of the proposal there would be a
significant enhancement and replacing in the wetland buffer as well as the removal of invasive species.
There is also a soft 4-foot wide trail being proposed in the outer buffer allowed per RMC 4-3-050. The
proposed mitigation beyond what code requires is being offered because of the modifications requested in
Table A above.
A comment letter was received by Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Division (Exhibit 10) with
comments related to the relationship between the existing Ribera Balko Short Plat mitigation plan
(Exhibit 6) and the proposed enhancement plan (Exhibit 3). In order to address the issues raised by the
Muckleshoot letter, a condition of approval, a final wetland mitigation plan including baseline
information for the Ribera Balko Wetland and Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval
whichever comes first. Additionally, in order to preserve and protect the wetland, stream, and associated
buffers the applicant will be required, to maintain the Native Growth Protection Easement over that part
of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer area. Finally, the applicant would be required to
maintain/install any split rail fencing and signage required per RMC 4-3-050 prior to the recording of the
Final Plat/Final PUD approval whichever comes first.
There are a total of 16 trees located on site of which no trees are proposed to be retained outside of the
critical area and its buffer (Exhibit 3). The applicant is required to retain 5 percent of the trees located
on site that are not located within critical areas, proposed rights-of-way and access easements. Of the 16
trees located on site none of the trees would be excluded from the tree retention requirements. Therefore,
the applicant would be required to retain at least 1 tree on site. When the required number of protected
trees cannot be retained, new trees, with a two-inch caliper or greater, shall be planted. The replacement
rate shall be 12-caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Therefore a total of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 11
12-caliper inches would be required to be replaced on site. The applicant is proposing a more than 50, 2
caliper inch replacement trees, for a total of 100-caliper inches, in order to meet the tree
retention/replacement requirement.
6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than
what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons:
protection of critical areas, provision of public facilities, and overall design. In order to make the site
viable for commercial development, the commercial use was sited along the NE 4th St frontage while the
remainder of the residential units were separated and placed in the rear of the development. Second, the
proposed design provides for a significant amount of landscaping and re-vegetation of the protected
critical areas for which mitigation had been abandoned by a previous owner. Since the current proposal
will not adversely affect the wetlands, the enhancement and mitigation incorporated into the proposal all
exceeds what could be required of the applicant in a subdivision application. Third, the plan provides for
both active and passive recreation significantly beyond the standard code requirements. As noted in the
staff report, the applicant proposes 20,000 square feet of open space and only 2,000 square feet could be
required for a subdivision application. The provided recreation areas would extend benefits beyond the
proposed development to the public. This proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities
because of the modifications requested in Table A of the staff report: Requested Modifications from
RMC above.
7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in pages 10-14 of the
Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the hearing examiner shall hold a
hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the
hearing examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development
applications.
Substantive:
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA).
The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the project site is Commercial Corridor (CC).
3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner
must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision
review and RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the
Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter 4-7 and RMC 4-9-150 must
be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and
applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 12
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning
Code as outlined in Finding 28, Table D of the staff report, with the modification that the applicant has
dropped its request for flexibility in lot coverage (all lots will comply with applicable lot coverage
standards). As depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, NE 4th St, although many of the
internal roads ultimately connecting to NE 4th St will be private as required by the conditions of
approval. The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets,
alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined at
pages 9-10 of the Staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to NE 4th St., an existing public street.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
7. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan that would
compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond NE 4th Street. Wetlands and
existing development prevent the extension of Whitman Ct NE to the southern edge of the property.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions
shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 13
8. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the
vicinity.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as
lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department
or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless
adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject
to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
9. The project site is not in a flood plain and does not contain any geologically hazardous areas.
RMC 4-4-130(H)(1)(c) requires 5% tree retention in the CA zone and RMC 4-4- 130(H)(1)(e) allows
the replacement of trees that cannot be retained at the rate of 12 caliper inches for each protected (more
than 2 caliper inches) removed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are 16 trees outside of
critical areas that will be removed by the applicant. The 5% retention rate requires the retention of one
tree or its replacement with 12 caliper inches of trees. The applicant is proposed 100 caliper inch
replacement, which significant exceeds requirements.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The
requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation
Resolution.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 14
10. The criterion is inapplicable. The proposal is not located in a single family residential or
multifamily residential zone.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
11. Public works has reviewed the proposed vehicular circulation system and has recommended
approval despite the lack of connection to Whitman Court to the south. The recommendation for
approval is construed as approval of this lack of connectivity. Presumably the connection is not possible
due to the wetlands located on the south of the project site.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
12. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
13. The project is limited to two connections to NE 4th St – one from Whitman Court and one from
the proposed commercial lot.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and recommended approval of the street alignment
as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(F).
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within
and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads
and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 15
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within
subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
15. As noted previously, extension of Whitman Court to the south is not possible due to the presence
of wetlands and existing single-family development. Consequently, the absence of full grid system
connection is authorized by the criterion above. The proposal includes alley access to 16 of the 40 town
units as required by the criterion above. The proposal includes a looped road system as encouraged by
the criterion above.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
16. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 16
17. As previously determined, there are no feasible street connections to the project other than to NE
4th St as proposed.
4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where:
1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration,
including size and shape of the parcel.
3. Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions 1 and 2, the proponent must
demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible.
18. The staff report concludes that the standard above is inapplicable, but there is no evident reason
why this would be the case. Townhomes can be arranged in blocks just as easily as single-family homes
and there is nothing in the code definition of “block” that would limit the concept to single-family
development. However, the site constraints of the project parcel, in conjunction with its elongated shape,
critical areas and preferred looped road design, preclude the use of a two-tiered block system as
authorized by RCW 4-7-160(A)(2).
4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public
crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6') in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely
across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be
paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at
the developer’s cost.
19. There is no information in the record on the issue of crosswalks. Since the intersection of NE 4th
St. and Whitman Court is signalized, it would appear that at the least a crosswalk should be placed at this
location, but it is unclear from the record whether that is the case. The conditions of approval will require
staff to consider the need for crosswalks.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
20. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
21. Each lot has access to a public or private road and staff has determined that all private roads meet
City street standards as modified by this PUD approval.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 17
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 17
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
22. The lots of the proposal do not meet minimum area standards (5,000 square feet in the CA
zone). However, smaller lots are authorized through the PUD modification provisions as addressed in
other portions of this decision. There is no minimum lot width required for lots in the CA zone. See
RMC 4-2-120A.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
23. There is no minimum lot width required for lots in the CA zone. See RMC 4-2-120A.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
24. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as
specified by the Department.
25. Utility easements have not been addressed at this level of preview. Presumably any needed
easements will be required during final plat engineering review.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
26. Maplewood Creek and the wetlands of the property, as well as their buffers, are all set aside in
critical area tracts.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 18
27. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
28. A technical information report has been provided establishing conceptual compliance with the
standard above and full compliance will be assured during final engineering review.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
29. Compliance will be assured through final engineer review.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
30. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final
ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the
subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
31. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 19
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
32. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified:
a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter
4-2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of
this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban
development…
33. As shown in Finding of Fact No. 3, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations
identified in the criterion quoted above with one exception. The one exception is the requested
modification to the RMC 4-3-100 requirements. An administrative interpretation, Ex. 15, amends the
provision above to include RMC 4-3-100. Since the interpretation has not been appealed, the examiner
is bound to follow it.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a
proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive
Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned
urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding
properties.
34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect
the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential
uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and No. 5, the natural features of the site are protected by
open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceed code standards. The proposal involves
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 20
innovation and creativity via the extensive use of looped road systems and alley access in conjunction
with a fully integrated system of sidewalks and pedestrian trails; the integration of the pedestrian
network into a trail extending through the wetlands of the site; and the integration of a landscape feature
that ties the proposed commercial development into adjoining residential development. The project is
consistent with the comprehensive plan as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the project is
consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is
superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4
and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental
to surrounding properties.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicantss shall demonstrate that a proposed development
will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable
effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable
impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed
planned urban development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same
degree as without a planned urban development; or
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject
property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area
wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or…
e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the
design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban
development. A superior design may include the following: ...
35. The proposal provides for public benefit by providing amenities related to critical areas, open
space, landscaping and overall design that significantly exceed code standards as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse
impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 21
a. Building and Site Design:
i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban
development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity
zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare.
36. The proposal provides for suitable transition as outlined at page 14-15 of the staff report,
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria:
a. Building and Site Design:
…
ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be
related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site
by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g.,
single family, townhouses, flats, etc.
37. The proposal provides for coordinated site and building design as outlined at page 15 of the staff
report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the
proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access
and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report
approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 22
38. The proposal provides for sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities as outlined at pages 15-18 of
the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited
driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep
gradients.
39. The circulation system is adequately safe, as outlined at pages 15-18 of the staff report,
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public
walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
40. The pedestrian circulation system provides for sufficient connectivity, as outlined at pages 15-18
of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 23
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
b. Circulation:
…
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
41. The proposed circulation system adequately accommodate emergency access, as outlined at
pages 15-18 of the staff report, incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other
improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development.
42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public infrastructure
and services to serve the development.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering,
separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or
a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required.
43. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal significantly exceeds open space
requirements. The multiple open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 24
recreational opportunities both passive and active. The overall project has less impervious surface than
otherwise would be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 45%
impervious surfaces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated walkways,
driveways, parking and drive aisles and would total approximately 100,000 square feet of area. The
remainder of the site would consist of critical areas, landscaping and other pervious surfaces.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external
privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual
and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks,
barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of
the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage,
mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a
height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to
each dwelling unit.
44. The on-site transition between the commercial and residential components of the project would be
supported by landscape buffers, separate entry signage as well as building orientations.
The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family and
commercial construction. Each residential unit would have a separate exterior entrance with insulated
walls separating the units. All residential units and the commercial structure would have access to light
and air, as each structure contains windows and some residential units contain Juliet balconies. Proposed
Lots 10-20 and (commercial) Lot 41 would also have direct views of the protected critical area while the
remainder of the units would have views of the common open space areas and individual private yards.
The applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation
and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere.
As mentioned above the proposed enhancement of the critical area buffer on the west side of the
development would provide screening for the proposed residential portion of the development from the
existing commercial property to the west. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a 5-foot planter along
the east side of the extended portion of Whitman Court NE to buffer the development for the existing post
office. Finally, a single-family development to the south of the site would be buffered by a 5-foot visual
barrier along the eastern portion of the southern property line if all conditions of approval are met.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 25
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 25
The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such
equipment for the commercial bank. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide
a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment for the
proposed bank. The detailed plan set shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval for the bank.
Screening landscaping and enclosure is required around refuse and recycling facilities. See staff report
supplemental discussion in Table E: Design District “D’ Standards.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking
advantage of topography, building location and style.
45. The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a
valley etc. Proposed Lots 10-20 and (commercial) Lot 41 would have views of the protected critical area
and the remainder of the lots would have views of common open space areas as wells as private yards.
The overall orientation of the project enhances local views by taking advantage of the site’s natural
features.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
…
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
…
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not
designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and
each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking,
and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
46. The proposal meets the criterion above as conditioned as outlined at p. 21-22 of the staff report,
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 26
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 26
RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the
development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any
overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested
pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section.
47. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-
150(E). As outlined in the staff report, Finding of Fact No. 28, Table D, incorporated and adopted by
this reference as if set forth in full, the proposal complies with the underlying zoning except for the PUD
modifications approved by this decision. The proposal also complies with NE 4th Business District
design standards, as outlined in staff report Finding No. 29, Table E, incorporated by this reference as if
set forth in full.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(1)(b)(i): Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10)
or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal
to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable
area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area
shall be subject to approval by the Hearing Examiner. The required common open space shall be
satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Hearing Examiner may require more
than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units.
(a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces;
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street
level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to
the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street
system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools,
exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
(e) Children’s play spaces.
ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted
toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common
use areas.
iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space
unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties)
courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a
fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development.
iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the
common space/recreation area requirement.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 27
48. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposed development would contain 40 units,
which would result in a minimum requirement of 2,000 square feet (40 units x 50 SF = 2,000 SF) of
common open space. The applicant has provided approximately 20,000 square feet of common open
space in the form of seven separate open space lawn/plaza areas. This exceeds the minimum requirement
by 18,000 square feet.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development
shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors)
for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or
detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall
be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can
substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story
units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less
than five feet (5').
49. Each residential unit appears to have private open space. However, the private open space does
not appear to meet the minimum requirement of 15-feet in every dimension. As such, a condition of
approval requires that the applicant provide revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private
open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension. The revised site plan shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/building permit approval
whichever comes first. If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard.
The applicants have requested a modification to the private open space requirement through the PUD
modification process. See Ex. 20, att. 5. The request is denied. RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) expressly
prohibits the modification of PUD regulations through the PUD waiver process. The applicant asserts
that this provision conflicts with RMC 4-9-150(D)(4), which requires that a PUD comply with
applicable PUD regulations, “…the underlying zone, and any overlay districts, and any overlay
districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to
subsection B2 of this Section.” The applicant then suggests that the only way to harmonize these
conflicting provisions is to completely ignore the RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) prohibition on modifications to
PUD regulations. It is not necessary to render RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(c) entirely meaningless as suggested
by the applicant and it certainly is not within the intent of the PUD provisions. The qualification to
RMC 4-9-150(D)(4)(“…unless a modification for a specific development standards has been
requested…”) clearly only applies to the requirement that the PUD comply with the underlying zone and
any overlay districts. PUD regulations expressly authorize modifications to underlying zoning and
overlay district requirements. Obviously, if any such modification is authorized, the PUD should not
have to comply with the zoning requirement in its unmodified form.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 28
RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the Applicants and approved by the City; provided, that common
open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the
issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an
amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the
date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2)
years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing
maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable
landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two
(2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division.
b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
50. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but
not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the
developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee,
assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060…
51. All common facilities must already be completed or bonded prior to final plat approval as
required by state and local subdivision regulations.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
…
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by
the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners’
association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a
responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the
maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners’ association accordingly. Such bill, if
unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property.
52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners’ association
for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements. All common facilities,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 29
not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners’ association. The
CC&Rs shall provide that if the homeowner’s association fails to properly maintain the common
facilities the city may do so at the expense of the association. The CC&Rs shall also provide that the
provisions pertaining to the obligation to maintain common areas shall not be amended without approval
of the City of Renton. Security for landscaping maintenance shall also be provided as outlined at page
41 of the staff report.
RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(d): The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4,
including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in
chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC.
54. No procedural revisions are requested.
DECISION
The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD, including all development standard modifications
identified in Finding of Fact No. 3, are APPROVED. The proposal is subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
1. The applicant shall comply with the two mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated April 21, 2014.
2. A final wetland mitigation plan which integrates the Ribero Balko Wetland and Stream
Buffer Mitigation Plan with the Altmann-Oliver Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD
approval whichever comes first. Additionally, in order to preserve and protect the wetland,
stream, and associated buffers the applicant will be required, to maintain the Native Growth
Protection Easement over that part of the site encompassing the stream/wetland and buffer
area. Finally, the applicant would be required to maintain/install any split rail fencing and
signage required per RMC 4-3-050 prior to the recording of the Final Plat/Final PUD
approval whichever comes first.
3. The applicant shall submit a screening/fencing detail plan. The screening/fencing detail plan
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
PUD/Final Plat approval whichever comes first.
4. The applicant shall provide interpretative signage/information at the trail entrance along NE
4th St and at the northern most lookout along the trail. The site plan depicting the signage
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first.
5. An easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail prior to
Final PUD/Final Plat Recording whichever comes first.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 30
6. The applicant shall provide a final detailed landscape plan for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/construction permit approval
whichever comes first.
7. The applicant shall amend the landscape plan to reflect plants with a maturity height of 6-
feet and 100% obscurity for the entire length of the modified 5-foot wide visual barrier along
the eastern portion of the southern property line. The revised landscape plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first.
8. The applicant shall revise the elevation so that garage doors provide additional details and
all sides of the building facing the public street and/or internal “street” provide a front door
or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would be
required between the sidewalk and the building. The revised elevations shall be submitted to
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final PUD/building permit
approval whichever comes first.
9. The applicant shall be required to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk for maintenance in
addition to right-of-way dedication for existing luminaire foundations along NE 4th St. The
revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager, prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first.
10. A revised site plan1 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first, depicting
the following: North of Road ‘A’, the required planter strip adjacent to the bank site would
be 8-feet, the sidewalk would be 5 feet, the existing 32-foot paved public road portion would
remain to allow the minimum width for the left turn lane at the signal. Right-of-way
dedication to the back of the sidewalk would be required; South of Road ‘A’, would be
required to remain a private road. The private road would have minimum 26-feet of asphalt
curb face to curb face. The cross section would also include a planter strip of 5-feet and a 5-
foot sidewalk. The paved width of this portion of the road would be finalized after a turning
movement diagram to allow the turning of large trucks serving the post office is provided by
the applicant; Signage must be provided by the developer at the transition from the public to
the private road.
11. The centerline of Road ‘A’ shall align with the centerline of the main post office driveway
across Whitman Court NE. A revised site plan depicting the alignment shall be submitted
to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit
approval.
12. The applicant shall be required to redesign the roads in order to provide a minimum of 20-
foot wide paved drive lane, separate from any required sidewalks. The revised site plan shall
be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first.
1 The applicant submitted a revised site plan in response to Conditions 10-12 at the public hearing. See Ex. 20. This
revised site plan may meet the conditions, as determined by the Current Planning Manager.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 31
13. The applicant shall equip all townhomes with an approved fire sprinkler system due to
limited available fire flow and long dead end roadways at this site.
14. A minimum 2 feet of separation would be required between the face of any wall and the
applicant would be required to demonstrate proposed common parking spaces have
appropriate sight distance. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval
whichever comes first.
15. The project’s bylaws or CC & R’s shall restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways
throughout the development. A copy of the bylaws shall be submitted to and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval
whichever comes first.
16. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening
provided for roof mounted equipment for the proposed bank. The detailed plan set shall be
submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval for the bank.
17. A revised site/landscape plan shall be submitted depicting intervening landscaping at no
more than 7 stall intervals in order to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout
the development. The revised site/landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval
whichever comes first.
18. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting bicycle parking in conformance with
RMC4-4-080F.11. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes
first.
19. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate how refuse and recyclables would be picked
up and where it would be located on pick-up day to the satisfaction of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to Final PUD approval.
20. The applicant shall be required to revise the landscaping plan to enhance the
landscaping/screening along NE 4th St, primarily directly in front of the drive-thru bays. The
revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Final PUD/construction permit approval whichever comes first. Staff shall
apply this condition in a flexible manner in order to ensure that the security interests of the
bank are not compromised. This condition may be revised as necessary by staff to
accommodate any administrative waiver to landscaping requirements authorized by City
code.
21. The applicant shall be required to submit revised elevations which include the refuse and
recyclable enclosure made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of
the three, and a roof. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
22. The refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of three
sides. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 32
Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever
comes first.
23. The applicant shall be required to reduce the number of residential curb cuts along the
internal road system to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Division. A revised site plan
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit/Final PUD approval whichever comes first.
24. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all
pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan
shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval.
25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing
elements including lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, or special detailing along the
ground floor of all residential units and the northern and western façades of the commercial
building. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to Final PUD or building permit approval whichever comes first.
26. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting the use of the same materials finished
on all sides of the building as well as additional changes in materials and color for the
residential structures. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit/Final PUD approval whichever
comes first. The applicant may also want to consider the use of the brick, integrally colored
concrete masonry, or a similar high quality material, to ground the residential buildings for a
height appropriate to the scale of the structure.
27. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Acceptable materials include a
combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel,
glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other high quality material.
28. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public
safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit
review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian
and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved
administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075
Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
29. The applicant shall be required to submit revised elevations depicting additional ornamental
lighting fixtures. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
30. The applicant shall provide revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open
space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension. The revised site plan shall be
submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Final
PUD/building permit approval whichever comes first. This condition may be modified as
necessary by staff to conform to any administrative waiver to the 15 foot standard granted
pursuant to City code.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 33
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 33
31. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device
to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be
planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and
maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A
security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping
maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of
Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept
on file with the Planning Division.
32. The applicant shall create a homeowner’s association to ensure that the private roads and
other common facilities are adequately maintained. The CC&Rs shall require the lot owners
to maintain the common facilities and shall provide that the City may maintain the facilities
at the expense of the lot owners if the lot owners fail to do so after receiving notice from the
City. The CC&Rs shall be completed and approved by the City prior to final plat approval.
33. All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
34. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including
streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks
shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
35. If staff has not already done so, staff shall assess the need for crosswalks as required by
RMC 4-7-160(B) and require crosswalks as circumstances warrant.
36. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
37. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are
available, or provided with the subdivision development.
38. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be
completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be
required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
39. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development.
Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company
shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and
certify to the City that it is properly installed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 34
SPECIAL GRADE/FILL PERMIT AND
CAO VARIANCE - 34
40. Monumenting and street signs shall be installed prior to final plat approval as required by RMC
4-7-210.
DATED this 11th day of June, 2014.
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s decision to
be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner’s decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day appeal
period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the
appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-
6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.