HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter w/dec Denis Law Mayor �
�
.
__ __ _ _ _
__ _
_ _ __ ___
. __
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
August 10, 2017
Evan Mann Jordan Salisbury
ESM Consulting Engineers Blue Fern Development, LLC.
33400 8th Avenue S, Suite 205 11232 120th Av NE, Suite 204
Federal Way, WA 98003 Kirkland, WA 98033
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision
RE: Earlington Townhomes— Preliminary Planned Urban Development
& Preliminary Plat- LUA-17-000390
Dear Mr. Mann & Mr. Salisbury:
The City of Renton's Hearing Examiner has issued a Final Decision dated August 8, 2017.
These documents are immediately available:
• Electronically on line at the City of Renton website (www.rentonwa.gov), click on
"Site Index", then click on "Hearing Examiner's Decisions";
• To be viewed at the City Clerk's office on the 7th floor or Renton City Hall, 1055
South Grady Way, between 8 am and 4 pm. Ask for the project file by the above
project number; and
• For purchase at a copying charge of $0.15 per page. The estimated cost for the
Hearing Examiner pocuments is$5.70, plus a handling and postage cost(this cost
is subject to change if documents are added).
APPEAL DEADLINE: RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner
is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) 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. Appeals must be filed in writing together with
the required fee to the City Council, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA
98057. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the
City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, (425) 430-6510.
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
RECONSIDERATION: A request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner may also be
filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-
100(G)(9). Reconsiderations must be filed in writing to the Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Additional information regarding the
reconsideration process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall -
7th Floor, (425) 430-6510. A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon
the issuance of a reconsideration decision.
Feel free to contact me at (425) 430-6510 (or jseth@rentan�,va.gov) with any questions
you may have on the appeal process.
Sincerely,
�
��
_ Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Clark Close,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
erianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Katie Buchl-Morales,Secretary, Planning Division
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (18)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 �
10 �� Earlington Townhomes �
FINAL DECISION
� 1 Preliminary Planned Urban �
Development and Preliminary Plat �
)
12 �
LUA17-000390, PP, PPUD )
13 �
14
SUMMARY
15
16 The applicant proposes a preliminary plat and preliminary planned urban development ("PUD") for the
construction of sixty townhomes on a 4.16-acre parcel located at 8074 S. 132°d St. The applicant seeks
17 PUD approval to vary numerous development standards including lot width, lot depth, setbacks,
building coverage, impervious surface maximums, building height, maximum number of units per
1 g building, retaining wall height, open space dimensions, parking stall dimensions, refuse and recycling
19 requirements and road dimensions. The PUD and preliminary plat are approved subject to conditions.
20 TESTIMONY
21 Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only and
should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or
22 exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective of the
23 priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to
accuracy.
24
Clark Close, City of Renton senior planner, summarized the staff report. Mr. Close noted that density
25 requirements cannot be modified by PUD review and the proposed density of the project is consistent
with applicable density requirements. The applicant is proposing three retaining walls. Staff is
26 recommending that the retaining wall height should be limited to the 6-foot maximum height required
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 1
1 by code, instead of waiving that requirement through PUD review as requested by the applicant. Staff
is opposed to waiving the 6-foot height maximum because (1) authorizing an increase in height would
2 have a compound effect on the applicant's ability to comply with other code requirements; (2)
3 retaining wall height limitations were adopted to maintain aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods; (3)
the taller the wall the greater the risk of potential failure; and (4) lower walls allow for increased
4 opportunity for maintenance. The superior design elements of the proposal include the clustering of
buildings, which provides for enhanced passive and active recreational use of surrounding open space
5 that totals 35,000 square feet. This exceeds minimum required open space of 350 square feet per unit
6 —the applicant is providing almost 600 square feet per unit. The development has superior pedestrian
networks and associated landscaping with meandering pathways that access the townhome units.
� These amenities provide ample facilities for townhome residents to meet and gather. Mr. Close noted
that the integration of the townhomes into the slopes of the project site reduces the appearance of
g massing. View corridors are maintained via the location of Road A and slope integration, which
9 sufficiently mitigates against any impacts by the requested increase in height.
�p Mr. Close noted three corrections in the staff report. He noted the construction window identified in
Finding No. 10 of the staff report only identifies approximate dates and that the applicant may not be
11 able to meet those dates due to the conditions of approvaL The applicant is not proposing Built Green
12 as identified in Finding No. 28 of the staff report. The reference to "shall complete the conditional
use permit process" from staff recommended condition no. 2 should be stricken.
13
In response to hearing examiner questions, Mr. Close noted that there probably are views to Lake
14 Washington from adjoining properties. Given the slopes of the project site, the proposed homes
would likely not be visible to adjoining properties at a greater height than other homes in the area
15 �,�,ithout the requested height modification.
16
Evan Mann, applicant's representative, noted that the applicant initially planned to do the project via
17 site plan review, but then determined that the unique conditions of the site were more amenable to
PUD and subdivision review. Staff handled the change in review well. The slopes were just below
1 g the grade protected by the City's critical area regulations. The biggest constraint and difficulty was
19 the slopes. All the townhome units will have a ten-foot step in them to integrate them into the project
slopes. Road A is set at a 14% grade,just below the 15% maximum. The applicant agrees that it can
20 meet the staff recommended condition requiring conformance to the maximum retaining wall height
requirements. Mr. Mann requested revision to staff recommended condition No. 3 to place the green
21 court areas into pedestrian easements instead of a separate tract. The green court as a whole should
ZZ be managed by the HOA. A tract would necessitate a redesign of the sidewalk, which can currently
meander through the project site. Placement in a tract would require removal of the meander. Mr.
23 Mann noted that Mr. Close's correction of the construction window doesn't mean that the applicant is
requesting any deviation from code on this issue. The applicant just doesn't want to be held to a one-
24 year construction window when that is not required by code.
25 Phyllis Chandler, neighbor, noted that her street is a private road. She lives directly across 132"d on
26 the corner. She noted that her neighbors have children that go to school during 7-9 am. The project
PUD and Preliminary Plat - 2
1 will generate 20 trips at this time. In addition, there are people driving up and down Renton Avenue
to get to MLK to get on the freeway. With all this traffic Ms. Chandler doesn't see it would be
2 possible for her to turn left to go towards the freeway. She has lived in her neighborhood since 1996.
3 When it rains there's nothing but mud behind the nursery. She's worried about construction. She
will be leaving her house between 7:30 and 9:00 to take her kids to schooL How will she be able to
4 go left to get to the schools during construction? She wants local access to go in and out of her
property. When they put in a sewage line, there were trucks digging on the corner, which made it
5 impossible to turn left. She was told by Clark that the townhome development would only have five
6 on-street parking spaces. She's seen parties in her area take up numerous on-street parking spaces.
Where will people park for the parties in the townhome development? Also, not every one of the 120
� cars for the townhomes will park in their garages. During sewer construction, she had to wait in line
with everyone else to get to her home.
8
9 Jessica Sydow stated she lives on 130t" and Renton Avenue. She wanted to know how the proposal
complies with R14 zoning density. She understood that a minimum of 20 acres is required for R14
10 maximum density. She noted that traffic is horrible, especially on Renton Avenue between 132°d and
130t". There are no traffic lights, no crosswalks and there is speeding. There is legitimate concern
I 1 over the traffic that will be created by the proposal. She noted that views are also a concern, because
IZ her home is at the same grade as the homes at the top of the development and that this will affect her
views of Mount Rainier. This development will adversely affect her property value and she just
13 bought her home in January.
14 Mr. Close, City of Renton Planner, responded to the hearing testimony. He noted that staff is ok with
the pedestrian easement requested by Mr. Mann provided that the easement includes the pedestrian
15 entry easement plus the five-foot sidewalk plus the separate private yard space. Regarding Ms.
16 Chandler's concerns, there is 100-110-foot separation between the 132°d St. access point to the
proposal and Ms. Chandler's access point to 132°d, which is adequate space to avoid conflicts in
17 turning movements. The applicant will also be required by code to submit a traffic control plan for
construction that enables neighbors to access their property. In response to examiner questions, Mr.
1 g Mann noted that the travel lanes will remain open during construction except during pouring of the
19 curbs. Ann Fowler, Renton Public Works, noted that a traffic impact analysis had been submitted and
that the low number of trips generated by the proposal didn't warrant the addition of any turn lanes.
20 Ms. Fowler confirmed that construction of the development will likely not necessitate the shutting
down of any lanes of traveL The City's regulations also require the control of off-site mudflow
21 through reyuirements for an erosion control plan. Mr. Clark noted that with the completion of
22 required frontage improvements to 132"d, the proposal will add 12 to 16 on-site parking spaces. The
applicant will have four on-site parking stalls on Road A as well. There is no code provision that
23 requires a minimum of 20 acres for development using maximum R14 density.
24 Evan Mann, applicant, noted there won't be any complete road closures. Single lane closures would
25 likely be one day or two for frontage improvements and it may not be necessary to ever close any
lanes. The conditions of the MDNS require full erosion control.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 3
1 Jordan Salisbury, applicant representative, noted the applicant feels very strongly about the project
design, especially the green court concept and the quality of the construction. The design process
2 with the City has been collaborative and has contributed significantly to the final design. He wanted
3 to thank Clark Close and Vanessa Dolbee for the time they invested in reviewing the project. The
only PUD modification request not supported by staff was the retaining wall height increase and the
4 applicant is now able and willing to do without the modification. The applicant also agrees with the
conditions of approval as modified by staffls agreed acceptance of pedestrian easements.
5
6 In response to examiner yuestions, Mr. Clark noted that none of the PUD modifications result in any
loss of on-street parking. The change from site plan review to PUD review resulted in more on-street
'7 parking.
8
EXHIBITS
9
10 The 47 exhibits identified at Page 2 of the July 25, 2017 Staff report were admitted into the record at
the July 25, 2017 hearing. The staff power point presentation was admitted as Ex. 48. City of Renton
11 core maps were admitted as Exhibit 49. Google maps for the project vicinity were admitted as Ex. 50.
12
FINDINGS OF FACT
13
Procedural:
14
15 1. Applicant. Jordan Salisbury, Blue Fern Development, LLC / 11232 120th Ave NE, Ste 204,
16 Kirkland, WA 98033.
I� 2. Hearin�. A hearing on the application was held on July 26, 2017 in the Renton City Council
meeting chambers.
18
Substantive:
19
20 3. Project Description. The applicant proposes a preliminary plat and preliminary planned urban
development ("PUD") for the construction of sixty townhomes on a 4.16-acre parcel located at
21 8074 S. 132nd St. The residential density of the project with bonus density is 18 du/ac. Access to
the townhomes would be from S 132nd St. The site slopes down to the south with vertical relief
22 of roughly 70 ft. The garages would be accessed via private alleys and all the townhomes would
23 be alley-loaded. The site currently contains greenhouses, a shop, a utility building and a single
family detached home. All existing structures would be demolished as part of the proposed
24 project. No wetlands or streams are located on the property. The developed site would continue
to drain to the south to the natural discharge location for the site. The site is in the West Lake
25 Washington drainage basin and stormwater requirements would be met with a stormwater
26 detention vault followed by a media filter vault with Level 2 Flow Control standards. The site
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 4
1 contains 57 significant trees, all of which are proposed to be removed. Construction is estimated
to begin in May 2018.
2
3 Requested PUD modifications are summarized in the following table copied from the staff report:
4
5 `� �
�
�� ��.F,., �� ., :�� ��•,.. ,• :
' ��zr�: �.� .. _
t.. „ ,.: . _.,. _ .
6 RMC 4-2-110A Development The minimum lot width of 30 Lot widths vary from a
Standards for Residential feet for internal lots and 40 minimum width of 16 feet to
� Zoning Designations— feet for corner lots is maximum width of 44 feet. 53
Minimum Lot Width required in the R-14 zone. percent(53%) of the lots or 32
g of the proposed 60 lots contain
widths of 16 feet or 20 feet.
9 The average lot width is
10 approximately 25 feet wide.
RMC 4-2-110A Development The minimum lot depth of Lot depths range from 58 feet
11 Standards for Residential 60 feet is required in the R- to 67 feet.The average lot
Zoning Designations— 14 zone. depth is approximately 63 feet
12 Minimum Lot Depth dee
p•
13 RMC 4-2-110A Development Minimum 15-foot front Individual lots do not contain
Standards for Residential (except when all vehicle the minimum required rear
14 Zoning Designations— access is taken from an alley, yard or the full secondary front
�5 Minimum Yards(Setbacks) then 10-foot), 10-foot yard setbacks. Instead,the
minimum rear,secondary secondary front yard would
16 front(applies to corner lots) have an average of
15-foot, and 4-foot approximately 13 feet with no
17 minimum unattached side individual secondary front yard
yard (0-foot for attached setback less than 11 feet. Due
1 g sides(s)). to the plat design,the
19 development is proposing
vehicle access from the alley
20 with 77 percent (77%)of the
units proposing only a 4-foot
21 rear yard setback and 23
percent(23%) of the lots
22 would include a 6-foot rear
23
yard setback.
RMC 4-2-110A Development 65 percent(65%) A little more than half of the
24 Standards for Residential lots would exceed the
Zoning Designations— maximum building coverage,
25 Maximum Building Coverage together the lots as a whole
26 would contain approximately
60 percent(60%) building
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 5
1 coverage. Lot coverage for the
entire development is
2 estimated at 29 percent(29%).
3 RMC 4-2-110A Development 80 percent(80%) Many of the individual lots
Standards for Residential would exceed the maximum
4 Zoning Designation— impervious surface area
5 Maximum Impervious Surface threshold. Lot impervious
Area surface area reach as high as
6 85 percent(85%) as
configured. If averaged across
� the entire site the impervious
surface area would be less
g than the maximum impervious
9 surface area.
RMC 4-2-110A Development 24 feet, increase up to 32 The building elevations include
10 Standards for Residential feet possible subject to wall plate heights ranging from
11 Zoning Designation— administrative conditional 24'to 26'.The heights exceed
Maximum Wall Plate Height use permit approval. the maximum wall plate by 2
�2 feet due to the site sloping in
multiple directions,
13 compounded with the depth
and length of the proposed
14 buildings.The tuck under
garages combined with the
15 depth of the units cause the
16 roof slope to be slightly taller
than 6 feet.The width of the
1'7 buildings along with the slope
of the site cause the average
1 g grade to be lower causing the
building plate height to be
19 slightly higher.
20 RMC 4-2-110A Development No more than 6 units per The applicant is proposing 14
Standards for Residential building. individual buildings, containing
21 Zoning Designations— 2 to 7 units each.There would
22 Maximum Number of Units be an average of 5 units per
per Building building.Three of the 14
23 buildings would have 7 units.
The buildings exceeding the
24 maximum number of units are
located interior to the site and
25 would not be overly
26
discernable from the street.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 6
1 RMC 4-4-040D.1 Fences, In any residential district,the One of the three (3) retaining
2 Hedges, and Retaining Walls— maximum height of any walls is proposed to exceed the
Maximum Height retaining wall shall be 6-foot threshold by 2 feet(2').
3 seventy two inches(72"), Specifically,the wall between
subject to further height the cul-de-sac terminus and
4 limitations as specified in the adjacent Renton Ave S
this Section. right-of-way.Terracing is not
5 feasible due to the steep
There shall be a minimum
6 three-foot(3') landscaped nature (14%)of the road and
setback at the base of limited spacing between the
� retaining walls abutting cul-de-sac and the right-of-way
public rights-of-way. (Exhibit 33).
g Together,two of the proposed
9 retaining wall would abut the
sidewalk along Renton Ave S
10 for a combined distance of 328
feet(264 ft+64 ft=328 ft).
11
RMC 4-9-150E.2 Development Each residential unit in a The PUD proposal includes
12 Standards—Private Open PUD shall have usable units with front yards with the
Space private open space (in smallest dimensions of 16'to
13 addition to parking, storage 20'wide and depths 11.25'. In
space, lobbies, and some cases, the dimensions
14 corridors)for the exclusive provide usable open space
15 use of the occupants of that greater that the required 225
unit. Each ground floor unit, square feet of private open
16 whether attached or space and 250 square feet of
detached, shall have private private yard without retaining
17 open space contiguous to the 15' minimum dimension in
the unit.The private open all directions.
1 g space shall be well
19 demarcated and at least
fifteen feet(15') in every
20 dimension (decks on upper
floors can substitute for the
21 required private open
space).
22
Residential Design and Open Each ground-related
23 Space Standards(RMC 4-2- dwelling shall have a private
115) yard that is at least two
24 hundred fifty(250) square
feet in size with no
25 dimension less than eight
26 feet(8') in width.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 7
1 RMC 4-4-080F.8. Parking Stall A private garage parking stall The interior dimensions of the
2 Types, Sizes, and Percentage shall be a minimum of garages are approximately 19'-
Allowed/Required twenty feet(20') in length, 4"wide by 18'-11/12" deep.
3 except for parallel stalls.A Therefore, all parking provided
standard parking stall onsite are proposed at
4 dimension is 9' by 20' in size. compact stall dimensions.
Compact parking stalls of
5 measure 8.5' by 16' but not
6 to exceed 30%of the total
number of spaces.
� RMC 4-4-080F.10. Number of A minimum and maximum of The applicant is proposing
g Parking Spaces Required 1.4 for 2 bedroom and 1.6 three 2 bedroom units, 28
per 3 bedroom or larger three bedroom units, and 29
9 dwelling unit. four bedroom units.The
applicant proposes to provide
l0 two (2) spaces per dwelling
unit, exceeding the maximum
11 spaces.
12 RMC 4-4-090D. Refuse and A minimum of one (1) Storage space for carts would
Recycling: Multi-family centralized refuse and be provided within the private
13 Developments—Additional recyclables deposit area for garages of each unit.Trash
Requirements for Deposit and every 30 dwelling units. pick-up locations would be
14 Collection Areas. provided between the
15 buildings throughout the site.
The refuse and recycling pick-
16 up locations are not intended
to be permanent daily storage
1� locations and no additional
screening is proposed.
18 Landscaping would be
19 provided.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 8
1 RMC 4-6-060F.2 Minimum Minimum standards for a The development proposes
2 Design Standards for Public residential access road installation of a new public
Streets and Alleys. requires a 53-ft right-of-way, residential access road (Road
3 26-ft pavement width, 0.5-ft A)with 53 feet of right-of-way
curb and gutter, 8-ft planter meeting the minimum street
4 strips and 5-ft sidewalks on standards as outlined in RMC
both sides of the street.A 4-6-060F up to the entrance to
5 cul-de-sac turnaround with the cul-de-sac(approx. 223
6 90-feet diameters are feet north of 5132nd St).At
required for streets over the cul-de-sac entrance,the
� 300-feet long, including a 45- right-of-way decreases to 29-
foot paved radius and 55-ft feet,which includes 28 feet of
8 ROW radius. paved roadway width,0.5-foot
wide curb and gutter on both
9 sides,
10 private 5-foot sidewalks on
both sides of the street, and
11 private planter strips within
the abutting lots and tract
12 (Lots 11, 18, 19 and Tract G).
13
14 4. Adeyuacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
15 infrastructure and public services as follows:
16 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton. Proximate 8-inch sewer and water mains are available to
17
serve the project site.
18
19 B• Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire
Authority and police services by the City of Renton.
20
21 Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services
22 to the proposed development if the applicant provides Code required improvements and
fees.
23
24 Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum 20 feet wide fully
paved, with 25 feet inside and 45 feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be
25 constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 75-psi point loading. Dead end streets that
26 exceed 150 feet in length require an approved turnaround. Cul-de-sac turnarounds with 90-
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 9
1 feet diameters are required for streets over 300 feet in length. Landscape islands are not
2 allowed in the cul-de-sac.
3 A Fire Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units is required to mitigate the proposal's
4 potential impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be required to pay an
appropriate Fire Impact Fee. The fee is payable to the City as specifred by the Renton
5 Municipal Code at the time of building permit application.
6
The police department is concerned about loitering of unwanted subjects within the two
� park areas (garden plaza at the north end of the site and the park-like area located above the
g vault). Therefore, a condition of approval reyuires that the applicant provide a permanent
four foot (4') tall fence along Renton Ave S that delineates between public and private
9 space. A fencing detail and location shall be identified on the final landscaping plan.
10
C. Draina�e. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all
11 significant drainage impacts. Public works staff has reviewed the applicant's preliminary
12 drainage design and found it to conform to the City's design standards. Important for
neighboring properties, the drainage standards require off-site stormwater flows to be at or
13 less in volume and velocity than predevelopment conditions. The development is subject to
14 Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
15
As required by the City's stormwater standards, the applicant submitted a revised
16 Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated June 12, 2017
1� (Exhibit 37), prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC. Pursuant to the preliminary
design, the development will provide flow control and basic water quality treatment prior to
I g discharge as required by stormwater standards. A detention vault is proposed to meet the
19 flow control facility requirement. The detention pond has been sized to the City's Flow
Control Duration Standard. The project matches the pre-developed discharge rates from
20 50% of the 2-year peak flow up to the full 50-year peak flow and peak discharge rates for
21 the 2 and 10-year return periods as required in the City's Flow Control Duration Standard
(Forested Site Conditions) area. Project water quality treatment would consist of
�� conveyance to a water quality filter vault following the proposed detention vault prior to
23 connection to an existing 12-inch concrete stormwater main located S 132nd St.
24 D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The
25 applicant has provided active and passive recreational opportunities and open spaces
throughout the development.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 10
1 The two largest recreation spaces are located along Renton Ave S. The first, is a large 8,123
2 square foot garden plaza located at the northern most portion of the property. The second, is
a 15,581-square foot play field area above the stormwater vault at the southeast corner of
3 the site. Together these areas offer a visual buffer by providing tree lined street frontage
4 with landscaping, vegetation wall and a park-like appearance. Under the PUD proposal, the
amount of potential open space more than doubles from an estimated 15,000 square feet to
5 35,728 square feet.
6
Without the use of the proposed PUD, no shared open space would be required by the code
� and there would likely have been no additional land area to provide any active recreational
g areas and open space would have been limited to required perimeter landscaping.
9 Common open spaces are accessed via the development's network of concrete sidewalks,
10 which connect to the garden plaza, park space over the vault and small nooks with tables
and benches located at the end of the meandering sidewalks located in front of the units.
11 These common areas provide opportunities for future residents to meet and gather
12 throughout the development. Decorative features will include a specimen tree as a focal
point at the end of the cul-de-sac, decorative paving, or a viewing area overlooking the play
13 field.
14
15 A condition of approval requires the applicant submit detailed cut sheets with the revised
landscape plan of the proposed picnic tables and benches. These amenities shall be durable
16 and appropriate for northwest climate. The cut sheets shall be submitted with the
l� construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager.
18
19 The proposed development is anticipated to impact the Parks and Recreation system. The
applicant will be required to pay an appropriate Parks Impact Fee. The fee would be used to
20 mitigate the proposal's potential impact to City's Park and Recreation system and is payable
21 to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
22 E. Pedestrian Circulation. As proposed, the proposal provides for a safe, efficient and
23 attractive pedestrian circulation system that is clearly delineated and connects buildings and
open space. Pedestrian sidewalks meander through the site making connections to seating
24 areas and offering view opportunities of Mt. Rainier. The project's design would utilize
alley drives to help minimize the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians. Private
25 walkways throughout the site would allow access to front doors of the townhomes with all
26 units opening to either a park-like space or courtyard to help enforce a sense of community.
Vehicle parking would be located within garages for each unit. Pedestrian scale and down-
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 11
� lighting will be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement.
Buildings along S 132nd St would be oriented to the street and contain pedestrian only
2 amenities as the buildings are rear vehicle loaded. Direct pedestrian sidewalk access is
3 proposed to and from the development.
4 F. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation
5 infrastructure.
6 The proposed development fronts Renton Ave S along the east property lines. Renton Ave S
� is classified as a Minor Arterial Road. Existing right-of-way (ROW) width is approximately
60 feet. The proposed development fronts S 132nd St along the south property lines. S
g 132nd St is classified as a Collector Arterial Road. The existing ROW width is
9 approximately 60 feet. Access to the site would be provided by installing a new public
residential access road (Road A) with 53 feet of right-of-way where the road meets S 132nd
10 St. The new road dead ends in a cul-de-sac at the north end of the property. Just before the
11 cul-de-sac entrance, the right-of-way decreases to 29-feet, which includes 28 feet of paved
roadway width, 0.5-foot wide curb and gutter on both sides, private 5-foot sidewalks on
1� both sides of the street, and private planter strips within the abutting lots and tract(Lots 11,
13 18, 19 and Tract G).
14 The proposed internal street system includes a limited modified residential access road that
15 runs north/south near the center of the site and the road (Road A) terminates in a cul-de-sac
16 and the north end of the property. From the centralized pubic road, five individual 20-foot
wide alleys branch off toward the east and west (Alleys A-E) to the garage side of each
17 townhome. The project's design would utilize alley drives to help minimize the interaction
1 g between vehicles and pedestrians. Private walkways throughout the site would allow access
to front doors of the townhomes with all units opening to either a park-like space or
19 courtyard to help enforce a sense of community.
20
Renton Ave S — To meet the City's complete street standards for minor arterial streets,
21 minimum ROW is 91 feet (4 lanes) or 103 feet (5 lanes). The traffic analysis provided by
22 the developer has been reviewed by the City and the City concurs that the existing pavement
width is sufficient and additional lanes are not required because of the development.
23 Therefore, the City's transportation group has determined and will support an alternate
24 standard to match the established standard street section for Renton Ave S. The City
established standard street section for Renton Ave S, which would be required to be
25 installed by the developer as part of the proposed development. This would include
26 allowing the existing curb line to be maintained with a new 8-foot wide planter strip and 8-
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 12
1 foot wide sidewalk to be installed behind the curb. The final ROW dedication will be
2 dependent upon the final survey and will vary along Renton Ave S. The required ROW
behind the existing curb is 18 feet (8-foot wide planter strip, 8-foot wide sidewalk, and 2
3 feet clear behind the curb). No bike lanes are needed along Renton Ave S. Currently, the
4 Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan specify a separate combined bike/pedestrian path
parallel to Renton Ave to provide bike access for the Renton Ave corridor.
5
6 S 132nd St —To meet the City's complete street standards for collector arterial streets,
minimum ROW is 83 feet (2 lanes) or 94 feet (3 lanes). The traffic analysis provided by the
� developer has been reviewed by the City and the City concurs that the existing pavement
g width is sufficient and additional lanes are not required because of the development. The
required street section for S 132nd St, as proposed by the applicant, meets the minimum
9 street standards as outlined in RMC 4-6-060F includes 83-feet of right-of-way, 46 feet of
10 paved roadway width (two 10-foot wide travel lanes, 5-foot wide bike lanes and 8-foot wide
parking lanes on both sides), a new 0.5-foot curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide planting strip,
11 an 8-foot wide sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements on both sides. Half-
I Z street improvements, which shall be installed by the developer, along S 132nd Street would
include, 23 feet of paved roadway width from centerline (10-foot wide travel lane, 5-foot
13 Wide bike lane and 8-foot wide parking lane), a new 0.5-foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot
14 wide planting strip, an 8-foot wide sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements.
The proposed street modification requests implement the policy direction of the policies and
15
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design
16 Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement
1� these policies and objectives. These policies are Policy CD-102 and Policy CD-103 which
state that the goal is to promote new development with "walkable places," "support grid and
1 g flexible grid street and pathway patterns," and "are visually attractive, safe, and healthy
19 environments." The reyuested street modifications are consistent with these policy
guidelines. The improvements would provide an upgrade to current conditions, would meet
20 the standards for safe vehicular and pedestrian use within the existing and proposed
2� roadways and neighborhood, would enhance the attractiveness of the new development. In
conclusion, staff found no adverse impacts fram modifying Road A, Renton Ave S, and S
22 132nd St right-of-way widths.
23
Concurrency — A traffic analysis dated December 14, 2016, was provided by Northwest
24 Traffic Experts (TraffEx) (Exhibit 19). The site generated traffic volumes were calculated
25 using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th
Edition, (2009). Based on the calculations provided and providing credit for the existing
26 trips utilized for the current site use, the proposed development would generate
PUD and Preliminary Plat - 13
1 approximately 292 net new average weekday daily trips. During the weekday AM peak
2 hour, the project would generate approximately 26 net new trips (5 inbound and 21
outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would generate approximately
3 30 net new trips (20 inbound and 10 outbound). As detailed in the report the proposed
4 project is not expected to lower the levels of service of the surrounding intersections
included in the traffic study. Public works staff have determined that the proposed project
5 passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit 24).
6
Citizen concerns -- There were several concerns raised about traffic impacts by adjoining
� neighbors. As the neighbors testified and wrote in comment letters, there is already
g significant traffic in the area that makes accessing their property difficult. However, the
proposal can only be made to mitigate its own impacts. The traffic study, as summarized
9 above, establishes that traffic impacts will be modest, at most adding 30 peak hour trips.
10 This added traffic will not lower level of service standards (which is a congestion standard)
and City public works staff found no justification under city regulations to warrant any
11 additional off-site improvements such as turn lanes or stop lights. The developer will be
12 made to pay traffic impact fees at the time of building permit review, which assures that the
new development pays its proportionate share of off-site traffic system improvements. In
13 short, the project meets all legislatively adopted standards relating to traffic congestion and
14 traffic safety. There is no legal basis to require more of the applicant.
IS
Concerns were also raised about construction traffic, specifically relating to lane closures
16 and tracking of mud. As noted by staff, City regulations require the applicant to submit a
�� construction traffic control plan and this plan must minimize interruption of traffic flow.
Given the large concern expressed by at least one neighbor, based upon past bad experience
1 g with an adjoining sewer project, a condition of approval will require that the City to forward
19 the applicant's construction traffic control plan to the neighbor for comment as well as
anyone else who requests a copy within 30 days of this decision.
20
21 G. Schools. The proposal provides for adeyuate schools. Staff anticipates that the Renton
School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the
�� following schools: Lakeridge Elementary, Dimmitt Middle School, and Renton High
23 School. School impact fees imposed by City code assure that the development will pay for
its proportionate share of needed school improvements.
24
25 RCW 58.17.110(2) provides that no subdivision be approved without making a written
finding of adequate provision made for safe walking conditions for students who walk to
26 and from school and/or bus stops. Elementary and high school students would be bussed to
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 14
1 school. The bus stop for elementary and high school is located at 8010 S 132nd St,
2 approximately 500 feet to the west. New frontage improvements along the subject property
and dedicated and paved shoulders along S 132nd St and a pedestrian crosswalk at the
3 intersection of S 132nd St and 80th Ave S provide a safe walking route for students to and
4 from the bus stop. Dimmitt Middle School is within a one-mile radius of the property and
therefore would not be eligible for school bus transportation. The designated route would
5 � include traveling north on the concrete sidewalk along Renton Ave S for 785 feet. At the
6 intersection of Renton Ave S and 80th Ave S there is a pedestrian crosswalk with a
pedestrian signal. The remainder of the route, approximately 1600 feet, is sidewalk and
� gravel shoulder along a dead-end road (80th Ave S). Each way would be less than half a
g mile. Therefore, a safe walking route exists for middle school students who would walk to
school.
9
�p H. Parkins. Staff has determined that the proposal complies with applicable parking standards.
11 As part of the PUD, the applicant has proposed to provide each unit two (2) compact
12 parking spaces in the unit's ground floor. The proposed parking exceeds the maximum
quantity allowed for three (3) bedroom or larger dwelling units and exceeds the amount of
13 compact spaces allowed per development.
14
15 The applicant has proposed to provide all tenant parking within garages to eliminate the
adverse aesthetic effects of surface parking lots. The use of compact spaces within some of
l6 the garages would require future residents to own vehicles that would fit inside the garages.
1� A condition of approval requires the applicant to establish enforceable bylaws, within the
Homeowners Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which require
1 g property owners to park their private vehicles within their garages. The applicant shall
19 provide draft bylaws for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to issuance of any occupancy permit.
20
21 Guest parking would be provided as on-street parking located along the main entry aisle.
Based on the road designs, it appears that approximately 16-20 spaces could be provided
22 within the public rights-of-way of Road A and S 132nd St. Staff is in support of the
23 requested modification if all conditions of approval are met.
24 No bicycle parking is referenced on the site plan or the unit floor plan. Therefore, a
25 condition of approval requires that the applicant submit revised plans with the building
permit application that identifies the location of code compliant bicycle parking meeting the
26 standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 15
1
2 Neighbors expressed concern about the adequacy of parking. However, the parking
standards adopted by the City Council set the standard of adequacy for parking and there is
3 no basis to second guess that legislative judgment in this PUD review.
4
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
5 Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows:
6 A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas on the site. A geotechnical report, Ex. 15, was
� prepared to assess whether the relatively steep slopes were protected by the City critical
areas ordinance, but they were found to not qualify for protection.
8
B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is
9 consistent with the City's tree retention standards. The City's adopted Tree Retention and
10 Land Clearing Regulations require the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential
development. The applicant submitted an arborist report, Ex. 17, that identified that the
1� subject property contains 57 significant trees, predominantly black cottonwood and big
leaf maple. The applicant is not proposing to retain any of the 57 remaining significant
12 trees within the project area given the scale of the filling and grading as well as their
13 locations relative to the proposed road and cul-de-sac (Exhibits 14, 30, and 31). Therefore,
the City's tree retention standards require the applicant to replant a minimum of 66
14 replacement trees at 2 caliper inches each to comply with the 20 percent (20%) tree
retention requirement. The final tree species selected and tree spacing would be review
15 and approved by the City Arborist (Exhibit 39). A condition of approval requires that the
16 applicant submit a revised landscaping plan that meets the minimum tree density
requirements of the tree retention and land clearing code (RMC 4-4-130C.9.d).
17
Trees 30 inches and greater are classified as landmark trees in the City of Renton and are
18 prohibited form removal without an approved Vegetation Management Plan or a Land
Development Permit. There are seven (7) trees on the site that meet the size threshold to
19 be classified as a landmark tree. The arborist report list includes 11, 17, 29, 32, 38, 44, and
20 45. Many of the landmark trees were noted as large and old by the Arborist. A final
landscape plan would be submitted and reviewed by the Current Project Manager for
21 consistency with the Tree Retention requirements of the code at the time of civil
construction permit.
22
23 C. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The subject property
abuts single family residential development with a variety of zoning (R-14 zone and King
24 County R12 to the north, R-14 to the east, R-10 and R-14 to the south, and R-8 and R-14 to
the west). Buildings are setback appropriately from abutting developed properties. To the
25 north, south, and east the property abuts Renton Ave S and S 132nd St. To the west the
26 proposed townhome project abuts two single family residential homes that are buffered by
the developments common open space and landscaped building setback area. The proposed
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 16
1 landscaping throughout the site along the perimeter of the development provides a screen
2 and enhances the development and the neighborhood. Although the proposed use is multi-
family instead of single-family development, the extensive open space, landscaping and
3 stepped integration into the steep slopes provides for significant buffering and ensures
compatibility with the surrounding less intense residential development.
4
Building design also provides for aesthetic compatibility with surrounding uses. The
5 proposed buildings appear to have been designed to be built in a coordinated fashion,
6 utilizing a consistent set of materials. The similar exterior components and roof profiles
across all buildings help to establish a cohesive development design. Differentiation
� throughout the design is provided with the use of different materials and colors, such as
glass railings and frosted windows. The applicant is proposing the use of fiber cement board
g with 4" and 10" reveals along with six different colors used on each building (cascade,
9 heron plume, cityscape, olive grove, red theatre, and greenblack).
10 Buildings along S 132nd St would be oriented to the street and contain pedestrian only
amenities as the buildings are rear vehicle loaded. Stoops and landscaped front yards are
11 provided along the street. Buildings located interior to the site orient to the common
12 meandering walkways and take advantage of the pedestrian friendly space.
13 D. Glare. As conditioned, the proposal will not adversely affect adjoining properties with
excess light or glare. A preliminary lighting plan was submitted with the application
14 package that included 6" up/down cylinder wall mounted lights, LED black bollard
landscape lights and up accent landscape lights. A condition of approval requires that the
15 applicant provide a lighting plan that includes a photometric calculation of average foot
16 candles that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on
adjacent properties. Pedestrian scale and down-lighting shall be used in all cases to assure
17 safe pedestrian and vehicular movement.
1 g E. Views. The proposal does not significantly impact the views of adjoining properties. At
19 least one neighbor raised concerns about impacts to views, in particular views of Mt.
Rainier. The topography of the site steps down from north to south with territorial views
2p of the south. The proposed buildings are built into the slope with ten-foot steps, which
helps minimize the blocking of views of adjoining properties. Even with the requested
21 two-foot height PUD modification, the buildings as seen from adjoining properties would
22 not be seen as taller than those authorized without PUD modification. A condition of
approval requires that where possible, the applicant shall maintain mountain views for
23 properties north of the project site. Given the density of development authorized by the
zoning code for the project site, the design of the project makes substantial progress in
24 minimizing view obstruction to surrounding properties. View impacts to other properties
25 may not be completely eliminated by the proposed design, but there is nothing more that
can be reasonably required of the applicant without running afoul of constitutional
26 limitations on regulation of private property.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 17
1
2 6. Superiority in Desi�. 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 by clustering the buildings
3 within the site to create more contiguous open space through the development. Open space amenities
that would not be required of a subdivision include a garden plaza at the north end of the site and a
4 large open park-like space at the corner of Renton Ave S and S 132nd St. The site takes advantage of
the sloping topography by constructing building foundation into the slope without mass grading. The
5 building massing and architecture would maximize natural light, maintain views of Mt. Rainier, and
6 create the best possible pedestrian experience of the sloping site.
7 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides for numerous public benefits as outlined at pages 18-
20 of the staff report.
8
9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 ProceduraL•
11 1. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-I50(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final
decisions on planned urban development applications. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide
12 that the hearing examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat
13 applications.
14 Substantive:
15 2. Zonin /�COmprehensive Plan Desi�nations. The project site is zoned Residential-14 (R-14)
16 and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density(RHD).
1� 3. Review Criteria. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review and RMC 4-9-
150 governs PUD criteria. Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
18 corresponding conclusions of law.
19 PUD STANDARDS
20
RMC 4-9-150(B)(2) and (3): Code Provisions That May Be Modified:
21
22 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
23 this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban
development.
24
b. An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirements of this Title, except those
25 listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of
26 the planned urban development.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 18
1 3. Code Provisions Restricted from Modification:
2
3
c. Planned Urban Development Regulations: The Ciry may not mod�any of the provisions of this
4 Section, Planned Urban Development Regulations, unless explicitly permitted as specified below;
5
6 4. As shown in Finding of Fact No. 3, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations
identified in the regulation quoted above except for the private open space requirements of RMC 4-9-
7 150(E)(2). However, RMC 4-9-150(E)(2) itself provides that "[tJhe minimum dimensional
g standards of this Section may be modified through the planned urban development review process;
provided, that the minimum area requirement is maintained." Since modifications to private open
9 space are limited to dimensions and minimum required area is maintained, the private open space
10 modifications are also appropriately subject to modification in this PUD review.
11 �C 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
12
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required.• Applicants must demonstrate that a
13 proposed development is following the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan,
14 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.
15
5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A),
16 are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity
1� in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the natural features of
the site are preserved by integrating the buildings into the steep slopes of the site and retaining trees
1 g as required by the City's tree retention standards (albeit by tree replacement). As determined in
19 Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to that which would result without a planned
20 urban development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any
significant adverse impacts and provides for and/or is served by adequate infrastructure so it would
21 not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
22 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
23 following requirements are met.
24 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development
will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable
25 effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable
26 impacts to suYrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 19
1 the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed
planned urban development.•
2
3 a. Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without
a planned urban development; or
4 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject
property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area
5 wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or
6 c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for
develop�nent of the subject property without a planned urban development.
'7 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
g development. A superior design may include the following: ...
9
10 6. The proposal provides for public benefit for the elements quoted above as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 7.
11
12 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
13
14
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned uYban development shall also be reviewed for
15 consistency with all of the following criteria:
16
a. Building and Site Design:
17
i. Perinzeter: Size, scale, mass, characteY and architectural design along the planned urban
1 g development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity
19 Z°nes. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare.
Zp 7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at Finding of Fact No. 5(C). A condition of
approval requires the Applicant to submit a materials board to the Current Planning Project Manager
21 to confirm that siding materials are non-reflective to reduce the potential for light and glare.
�� RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
23 following requirements are met.
24 ..
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
25 consistency with all of the following criteria:
26
a. Building and Site Design:
PUD and Preliminary Plat-20
1
� ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be
3 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
4 family, townhouses,flats, etc.
5 8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(C).
6
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban developinent only if it finds that the
7 following requirements are met.
8
9 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
10
11 b, Circulation:
12 i. Provides su�cient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
13 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
14 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.
15
16 9. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as determined in Finding
of Fact No. 4.
17
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
1 g following requirements are met.
19
20 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
21
22 ...
b. Circulation:
23
24
25 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
26 gradients.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 21
1
10. The proposal meets this requirement as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4.
2
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
4
5 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
6 consistency with all of the following criteria
� ..
b. Circulation:
8
9 "
10 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit,public
walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
11
12 11. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4 and shown in Ex. 5, as conditioned the proposal provides
for a well-integrated system of internal pedestrian improvements that ultimately connect to required
13 frontage pedestrian improvements.
14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
15
16 ••
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
17 consistency with all of the following criteria
18
19 b. Circulation:
20 •.
21
22 iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
23 12. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4.
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 22
1
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
� consistency with all of the following criteria
3
c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements,
4 existing and proposed, which are su�cient to serve the development.
5 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public
6 infrastructure and services to serve the development.
7 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
8
9 ��'
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
10 consistency with all of the following criteria
11 ..
12 d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering,
13 separation of building groups, and with well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in
amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required.
14
14. The proposed development separates the 60 dwelling units into 14 separate buildings that are
I S linked together by a public road, alleys and sidewalks. This unique design of the site provides an
16 ability to maximize space on the property and accommodate active and passive common open space.
Building entries face a centralized garden plaza in most cases with pedestrian corridors that run
17 through the center of several townhome clusters on west/east axis. Buildings are separated from their
immediate neighbors by providing open green spaces or plantings at the sides of the townhomes
18 buildings.
19
RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
2p following requirements are met.
21
22 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
23
24
25 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
26 and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks,
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 23
1 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,
2 mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a
3 height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Su�cient light and air are provided to
each dwelling unit.
4
15. Perimeter planting provides a buffer and privacy screen between the proposed project and
5 existing development surrounding the site. Internal to the site, where structures face each other,
6 building opening would be designed in a way to provide light and air to all major living spaces and
would be oriented in such a way as to not infringe on the privacy of neighboring and adjacent
� buildings. Main living space in the townhome units would be located above the level of finish grade
and windows would be located in a way as to be above the eye level of passerby travelers along the
g pedestrian corridor.
9 The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi-family
10 construction. Each residential unit would have a separate exterior entrance with insulated walls
separating the units. All residential units and would have access to light and air, as each structure
11 contains windows. The placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation and
12 privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere.
13 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
14 ..
3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
15 consistency with all of the following criteria
16
17
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking
1 g advantage of topography, building location and style.
19
16. The topography of the site steps down from north to south with territorial views of the south.
20 The applicant has oriented the buildings north/south to take advantage of the sloping topography
while providing direct views to the south. The building layout would also allow for long
21 uninterrupted views from the highest point of the site down across the development and to the
22 landscape areas beyond with all units having a potential view of Mt. Rainier on a clear sunny day.
The siting and orientation of the buildings would also reduce the impact to residential properties
23 around the site. As a condition of approval and where possible, staff is recommending the applicant
maintain mountain views for properties to the north of the project site.
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 24
1
2 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
3
4
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not
5 designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and
6 each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for e�cient use of parking,
and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
7
17. All required parking would be located within individual garages (120 stalls) of each
g townhome unit. No large surface parking lots are proposed. On street parking for guests would be
9 available on Road A or on S 132nd St.
10 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
1� overlay districts; unless a modification for a specific development standard has been requested
12 pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section.
13 18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC
14 4-9-150(E). The proposal is compliant with the standards of the underlying R14 zone for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 26 of the staff report. No overlay districts apply.
15
RMC 4-9-150(E)(1)(b)(i):
16
�� Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall
provide a minimum area of comrnon space or recreation area equal to fifty (SD) square feet per unit.
1 g 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
19 Hearing Examiner. The required comrrton open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the
elements listed below. The Hearing Exarniner may require more than one of the following elements
20 for developments having more than one hundred(100) units.
21
(a) Courlyards,plazas, or multipurpose open spaces;
22
(b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level
23 must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the
24 development;
25 (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system;
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 25
1 (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise
areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
2
3 (e) Children's play spaces.
4 19. The applicant proposes to provide active common open and green space along the frontage of
Renton Ave S. Pedestrian sidewalks meander through the site making connections to seating areas
5 and offering view opportunities of Mt. Rainier. The largest areas of open space for recreation and
6 green space is located along Renton Ave S in tracts (Tract F, G, H, I, and J). These tracts offer a
visual buffer by providing tree lined street frontage with landscaping and a park-like appearance
� between the development and busy minor arterial street. These areas include landscaping, benches,
tables, sidewalks, play field, and viewing areas. Together these open space areas (including storm
g drainage tract) offer 0.82 acres of common space or recreation area. Altogether this would be
9 equivalent to 595 square feet per unit. The play field alone offers more than double the required area
of fifty(50) square feet per unit.
10
RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development
11 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors)
12 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
13 be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (15) in every dimension (decks on upper floors can
14 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
15 than five feet(S).
16
20. The PUD proposal includes units with front yards with the smallest dimensions of 16' to 20'
17 wide and depths 11.25'. In some cases, the dimensions provide usable open space greater than the
1 g reyuired 225 square feet without retaining the 15' minimum dimension in all directions. The
applicant has requested to modify the dimensional requirements as referenced in Finding of Fact No.
19 3, which is approved by this decision.
�� RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
21 a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
22 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
23
issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a securiry device to the City in an
24 amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the
25 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
26 maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 26
1 landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two
2 (2)year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division.
3 b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
4 21. As Conditioned.
5 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
6 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,
8 assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060...
9 22. As Conditioned.
10
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
11
12
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by
13 the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners'
14 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
15 maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if
16 unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property.
17 23. As conditioned.
18 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
19 RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
20
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
21
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
22
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
23 because of flood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be
24 required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
25 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
26 supplies and sanitary wastes.
PUD and Preliminary Plat-27
1 24. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning
2 Code. As shown in the site plan, Ex. 5, all lots have access to S. 132"d St. a public road, via Road A.
The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted. As
3 determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets,
4 alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes.
5 RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards...
6
� 25. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 25 of the Staff report.
8
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
9 approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the str�eets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
10 or street(according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
11 26. The internal roads and alleys ultimately connect to S. 132"d St., a public road.
12 RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
13 City.
14 2�• The criterion is met. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any applicable
street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads
15 beyond S. 132"d St...
16 RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an o�cially designed trail,provisions
1� shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes.
18 28. The criterion is met. The Staff report and administrative record do not identify any officially
19 designated trail in the vicinity and no trail is visible in the vicinity of the proposal in the aerial map on
page 1 of the staff report.
20
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
2� with the following provisions:
�� L Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
23 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
24 or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless
25 adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 28
1 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is
2 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
3 such subdivision.
4 b. Steep Slopes:A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
5 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent(40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
OSOJI a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
6 approved.
7
8
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
9 Clearing Regulations.
10 29 As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no critical areas at the project site. As further
11 determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal complies with the City's tree retention standards.
Given these factors, as mitigated by the recommendations in the geotechnical report, the project area
12 is suitable for subdivision as required by RMC 4-7-130(C).
13
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
14 family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's
15 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
16 and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution.
1� 30. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the proposal satisfies park requirements by the
�g payment of park impact fees and exceeds open space requirements.
19 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
20 system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing O�cial shall find that such exception shall
21 meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
22 defined and designated by the Department.
23 31. Public works has approved the proposed street connections as required by the criterion above.
24 RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
25 32. As conditioned.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 29
1 RMC 4-7-150(C): StYeets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
2 secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
3 33. S. 132°d St. is classified as a collector arterial, but the project would be landlocked if it could
not directly access this road so there is no other alternative. The criterion is met.
4
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
5 Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
6 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.
8
34. The criterion is met. Public works has reviewed street alignment and consistency with RMC
9 4-6-060 and recommends approval of the PUD. The project does not include a street alignment offset
10 of more than 125 feet.
11 RMC 4-7-150(E):
12 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.
13
14 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks,pedestYian or bike paths, shall be provided within
and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads
15 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
16 Ele�nent, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-SO and CD-60.
17
3. Exceptions:
18
a. The g�id pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid"by reducing the number of linkages or the
19 alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
�� i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
21
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
22
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
23 existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required
24 within subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
25 S. 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
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 30
1 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...
2
3 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
4 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
5 possible.
6
� 35. The criterion is met. RMC 4-7-150(C) requires that street connections to major and minor
arterials be held to a minimum. Given that Renton Ave S. is a minor arterial, the only way to
g minimize connections to arterials is by the proposed connection to S. 132°d St.
9
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
10 including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be gz�aded to their full width and the pavement and
11 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
12
36. All proposed street dedications will be fully graded and will meet applicable street standards
13 except as modified by the PUD process.
14 RMC 4-7-150 G : Streets that ma be extended in the event o
O y f future adjacent platting shall be
15 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
16 required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
17
37. As previously discussed, minimizing connections to major and minor arterials as required by
Ig RMC 4-7-150(C) can only be accomplished by limiting the connection to S. 132°d St.
19 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where:
20
1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
21
2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration,
22 including size and shape of the parcel.
23 3. Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions 1 and 2, the proponent must
24 demonstrate that a d�erent layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible.
25
38. As shown in Ex. 5, blocks are composed of two tiers of lots to the extent that the shape of the
26 project site make feasible.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 31
1 4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public
2 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
3 paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at
4 the developer's cost.
5 39. It's not entirely clear from the site plans whether or where any crosswalks will be located. It's
likely that the issue will be addressed during final engineering, but since cross-walks are one of the
6 standards imposed by the subdivision code (as opposed to street design standards or the like), the
� conditions of approval will require that the applicant install cross-walks as determined by public
works to be necessary for public safety and compliance with City development standards.
8
9 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.
10
40. As depicted in Ex. 5, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above.
11
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
12
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
13
41. Each lot will have access to S. 132°d St. via the internal road and alleys.
14
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
15 Yequirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
16 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
1� requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
1 g 42. As previously noted, as modified by this PUD decision the proposal meets all applicable lot
19 and density standards.
2� RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foYemost points (i.e., the points where the
21 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
22 twenty feet (20) and(2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
23 shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35).
24 43. All proposed lots are rectangular with mostly uniform lot widths that comply with the lots
widths approved through this PUD decision.
25
26 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(1 S).
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 32
1 44. As Conditioned.
2 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the rnaintenance and operation of utilities as
3 specified by the Department.
4 45. As conditioned.
5 RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
6 watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
7
46. As previously noted, the applicant has preserved the slopes of the project site, which is a
g unique and positive design feature. Tree retention is in conformance with the City's tree retention
9 standards.
10 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
11
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
12 eight feet(8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
13 development.
14 47. As Conditioned.
15 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
16 sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
1� designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capaciry for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
�g detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to
19 provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
20 48. The proposal will be designed to meet all City drainage standards including those above as
21 outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4.
22 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
23 Department requirements.
24 49. As outlined in the staff report, fire hydrants have already been reviewed by the Fire
25 Department. Conformance to city standards shall be assured during final engineering review.
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 33
1 RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
2 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
3 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
4 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.
5
50. As Conditioned.
6
� 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
8 by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
9 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
10 bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
11 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
12 subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
13 51. As Conditioned.
14 RMC 4-7-210:
15
A. MONUMENTS:
16
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at every controlling corner of the
1� subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall
1 g be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
19 B. SURVEY.•
20 All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
21 C. STREET SIGNS:
22
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
23
24 52. As Conditioned.
25 DECISION
26
The proposed preliminary plat and PUD meets all applicable criteria quoted in this decision and for
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 34
1 that reason is APPROVED subject to the following conditions of approval below. The PUD
modifications identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are also approved except for the requested
2 modification to retainer wall height.
3
4 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated, dated May 8, 2017.
5 2. The applicant shall provide an Affordable Housing Restrictive Covenant and Agreement
6 (the "Covenant") upon seven (7) units prior to certificate of occupancy. The Covenant is
designed to satisfy the granting of the density bonus provision and shall remain affordable
7 for fifty (50) years. The applicant shall submit to, and have approved by, the Current
Planning Project Manager, the Covenant prior to or concurrent with building permit
g approval.
9 3. The applicant shall limit the size of the lots to only include the dwelling unit, private
driveway, private amenities, and private open space dimensions. The remainder of the
10 parent site shall be platted as one or more tracts. Instead of tracts, pedestrian facilities
may be placed in a pedestrian easement as authorized by staff. The plat plan shall be
11 reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction
12 permit approval.
4. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan that provides the species, quantity,
13 planting notes, and plant spacing to comply with the intent and dimensions of the
reyuired visual barriers identified in the landscape code. In addition, all refuse and
14 recycling pads shall maintain a minimum 10-foot separation from the west properry line.
15 The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building and/or construction permit approval.
16 5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan with the building permit
application that meets the minimum tree density requirements of the tree retention and
17 land clearing code (RMC 4-4-130C.9.d). The revised landscaping plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
1 g 6. The applicant shall be required to establish enforceable bylaws, within the Homeowners
19 Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which require property
owners to park their private vehicles within their garages. The applicant shall provide
20 draft bylaws for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
issuance of any occupancy permit.
21 7. The applicant shall submit revised plans with the building permit application that
22 identifies the location of bicycle parking meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11. The
revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
23 prior to building permit approval.
8. The applicant shall submit a revised floor plan and landscaping plan with the building
24 permit application that is appropriately sized to accommodate both vehicles and refuse
25 and recycling carts, both inside and outside the garage. Storage space for carts shall
measure at least two feet by six feet (2' x 6') in floor area and sixty inches (60") high.
26 The refuse and recycling deposit areas located outside the unit for garbage pick-up day
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 35
1 must also provide an area two feet by six feet (2' x 6') per unit. There shall be a direct
connection constructed of a smooth surface that allows carts to be smoothly rolled to the
2 specified pick-up location approved by Republic Services. The garage floor plan and
3 storage pad areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit and/or building permit approval.
4 9. The applicant shall submit a revised grading plan that identifies the elevations of the top
and bottom of each retaining wall to verify the height complies with the 6-foot height
5 limitation. Additionally, the plans shall contain a cut sheet of wall materials. The revised
6 grading plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application to be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer prior to
7 construction permit approval.
10. The applicant shall submit detailed cut sheets with the revised landscape plan of the
g proposed picnic tables and benches. These amenities shall be durable and appropriate for
9 northwest climate. The cut sheets shall be submitted with the construction permit
application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
�p 11. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that includes a photometric calculation of
average foot candles that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive
ll glare on adjacent properties. Pedestrian scale and down-lighting shall be used in all cases
12 to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement. The lighting plan shall be submitted
with the construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current
13 Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
12. The applicant shall establish a HOA for the development, which would be responsible for
14 any common improvements. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be
permanently maintained by the PUD HOA. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
15 (CC&Rs) shall provide that if the HOA fails to properly maintain the common facilities
16 and integral elements of 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
17 areas shall not be amended without approval of the City of Renton. The applicant shall
provide draft CC&Rs and HOA incorporation documents for review and approval by the
1 g Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of any occupancy permit.
19 13. The applicant shall construct the programmed recreation areas (garden plaza, play field,
seating, and pathways) with amenities prior to Certificate of Occupancy of the first
20 building.
14. The applicant shall provide a minimum of 250 square feet of private yard space (may
21 include private balcony area) per lot. A revised site plan and floor plan shall be submitted
22 to and approved by the City of Renton Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
15. The applicant shall add at a minimum one (1) additional architectural detail and one (1)
23 additional exterior wall material to provide distinction between the buildings. A final
architectural elevation plan and materials board shall be submitted to and approved by the
24 City of Renton Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
25 16. The applicant shall provide a permanent four foot (4') tall fence along Renton Ave S that
delineates between public and private space. A fencing detail and location shall be
26 identified on the final landscaping plan.
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 36
1 17. Where possible, the applicant shall maintain mountain views for properties north of
2 project site.
18. The applicant shall submit a materials board with the building permit application for
3 review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval to confirm that siding materials are non-reflective to reduce the potential for
4 light and glare.
19. The applicant's proposed construction traffic control plan shall be forwarded for
5 comment to Phyllis Chandler and any other persons who reyuest a copy within 30 days of
6 this decision. Public comments shall be due within ten calendar days of mailing.
20. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security
7 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
g development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release
9 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
�p 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
11 Division.
12 21. 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
13 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
14 RMC 4-9-060.
15 22• All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
23. The applicant shall install cross-walks as determined by public works to be necessary for
16 public safety and compliance with City development standards.
24. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
17 minimum radius of fifteen feet(15').
1 g 25. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
19 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,
20 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
21 may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the
22 Department.
26. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities
23 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
24 sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve
25 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
26 developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to
PUD and Preliminary Plat - 37
I serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and
2 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.
3 27. Street signs and survey markers and monuments shall be installed as required by RMC 4-
7-210.
4
5 DATED this 8th day of August, 2017.
6 ._
�
� F�..�-�'�.��..�.�-�..,..�_.�._�.__..��..�.
� I'hi A.C?Ibrc+chts
8
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
9
10
11 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
12 RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
13 examiner's decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the
decision. A reyuest for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-
14 day appeal period.
15
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
16 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PUD and Preliminary Plat- 38