Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-07-018_Report 2~ ~ ;p \ \ \ o 10 ~o 1'1' .!L ...... Jr , ., I °"llcr ['1'" L r= ~ '-'I :-...... --~ , 1 \ EXHIBIT 1.D "" .. c;,. .... --~~_ ..... =O .... =<~ .;;;;-. ...... ""===. lL ~, ,n' ..... ". 1= EXI STING --'-/"' ~..s. ~, R _ 31 .-F=1;"."" .• ~~,~.n.::-o~ /":;1 :~ ;;[[1 115 :J ~ r-.! .... om ] ... 1.---j~ ~ I ,I ,I , I.!.~ ;d i .. ' . ;,; .~ /,,' '*". 'n __ .;:iY Kt)V,'\('H .1 IIt'HITI<X.1'S " d ~ I- • • m EVEl<GRE:EN EVEI<GI<EE N TI< .d i ~ EXISTING 12 ' 8 EX IST ING ~C! ~e7 H GH HEDGE ~ CEDAI< T'<EE tl ~ EVEI<GI<EE N TI<EES -----, I 41. .9.~C":;; ASPHALT ASPHALT M~ M~ J L J \ \ HeF<.II"'AGe Vll.-~Ge CONDOMINIUMS '--__ ..Jr- 9>IL5 ~~oN SCAL..5: 1"= :20'-0" DOCUMeNT D ATe: 0$/::25/07 ; --""r-c::I ,..-,.,..1 ,~ I Q c::: e: ---<e:I"'1-!-~1"'1 '-VA Sc::::: o-t-t-'-Vi 1<.1 of' ;:::>~o;::>e~'"rT" eOUNOAI=<...,... ca::21.,s,' NBO'OO'O ' e ~' ~ SITe !=>I-AN 10'-0" M IN. /' / -rAX ~AF<Ce:1-NO: :20:2'=05905:2 SI-re: ADDF<e:SS: 1a:s00 <::3F<..AN-r AV S I-O-r AF<e:A: 9:2,:347 SC><F-r (:2.1:2 ACF<e:S) /' NM'H .\J«JID'l'N<,.:'ffi b I N ~ i w <J1 "- "-lIlin -Ill Or 0>-!'Itt G~ IIlz ) 0 I1l ~ IV Iii 0 \) fj !l 15'-0" / /SET~K j"' AeU~j"'IONe KOVACI-1 AF=iCI-1ITe:cTe 39 UNITS PI<OVIDED 42 UNITS ALLOWED 13 TI<IPLEX B UIL D INGS 1650 SF TWO STOI<Y 3 BEDI<OOM TOWNHOMES OVEI< GAI<AGE 68,933.6 SF IMPEI<VIOUS ALLOWED 56,215.0 SF IMPEI<VIO US PI<OPOSED 32169 SF BU IL D ING AI<EA ALLOWED 27,857 SF BU IL D ING AI<EA PI<OPOSED 28,358 SF PI<IVATE I<OAD AND DI<IVES ZONI5 F<M-F FCI5C><UII:c.I5MI5N.,..S O_O_I=tY M inimum Ders Ty Moximum Density e«11:;?C;QIc;a H in . front yard M in . s ide yord Min . rear yare Building 9-tc=ndCll""d. Max. S -rories ond he·grrr Max, buil d ing coverage Max i-npervioLJ5 crea I.ec:Ind_oQploCil General 10 unts per net acre 20 l..nt5 per net ocre 20 P- 12 fr (Bosed 0'1 'Nidth) '10.1 + ft lot width 15ft 3 stories/ 35 fr 35% 75% o 10 20 30 40 FT 15 ft IO'1d scope strrp a long ooumng portio.,;; of lot pO,""';ons of le1" SCAL-ES: 1"=40'-0" DOC:UMSNT OATS, 5 /~5 /C:>5 required pari<in g IocaMon p •• lgM 4rt'c:2nd!i:lr"'d. General SL..rfcce parking is permitted 1M the Side ond rear yord arecs only speCial design STcnde~s may be required. I CITY OF RENTON JUN 22 7007 (yn :s1~7'''' RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OfFICE BEFORE THE CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER TRIDOR, INC. Appellant, v. THE CITY OF RENTON, a Washington Municipal Corporation Respondent. No. LUA-07-018, SA-A, ECF TRIDOR, INC. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW CONDITIONS I. INTRODUCTION Tridor, Inc.'s ("Tridor") proposed Grant Avenue Homes project ("Project") is a high-quality residential development which incorporates numerous sophisticated architectural features designed to enhance compatibility with the surrounding area, promote privacy, and provide for a high-value addition to the neighborhood. The Project is a pennitted use within its zoning designation (RM-F). It was carefully designed and modified in consultation with City officials, through the Site Plan Review process, to reflect the City's development standards. Tridor is pleased that the City approved the Administrative Site Plan for the Grant Avenue Homes Project. Tridor is working to modify its Project plans to address some of the conditions imposed by the City. Tridor is also joining the City in defending an appeal against the DNS-M for the project. Thus, but for a couple of conditions, Tridor and the City appear to be on common ground with regard to the Project. Tridor is appealing a condition that almost doubles the standard sideyard setback requirement from 13 feet to 25 feet, and would equate to a floor plan reduction of approximately 11,070 square feet 1 or 34% of the total living space in the buildings affected (Condition 4 or "Setback Condition"). Condition 4 exceeds the authority of the City and is arbitrary and capricious. It is premised on incorrect application of the Code and requires unreasonable changes to the Project scope, and jeopardizes its economic viability. Condition 4 should therefore be repealed. Tridor also appeals a condition that requires a triplex attached to a single unit to be replaced by a fourplex (Condition 2). The proposed structure does appear to be allowed by the Code, and Tridor therefore requests that consideration also be given to removing Condition 2. II. KEY FACTS Tridor and its architects worked closely with City planners for many months prior to submitting an application for Site Plan Review for the Grant Avenue Homes Project. [Kovach testimony]. The current site layout was developed in response to Code requirements and conversations with City staff in order to address issues such as central access for fire department vehicles, building envelopes, road width, and onsite parking. [Kovach testimony]. To accommodate this layout the Project proposal was reduced from 39 to 36 units. [Site plans, Exhibit I; Kovach testimony]. The Project is a permitted use within the RM-F zone, and readily satisfies development standards governing density (maximum is 20, Project is 17.06); site coverage (maximum is 35 percent or 45 percent if mitigated, Project is 33 percent); and, impervious surface coverage (maximum is 75 percent; Project is 70). [Staff Report, at 10]. The proposed height falls within the discretionary height that can be added during Site Plan Review (standard height is 35 feet and 3 stories, additional height up to 45 feet allowed through Site Plan Review; Project height is 37 feet, 3 inches to accommodate desired roof pitch). [Staff Report, at 10; Kovach testimony]. The proposed 20 foot front and IS foot rear yard setbacks, and the proposed 13 foot side yard setbacks meet the standard setback requirements for a 3 story building on a lot of this width. [Staff Report, at 9]. Numerous costly design features were incorporated into the Project to enhance compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods, and to promote the aesthetic of 2 a residential streetscape. In particular, the Project is comprised of duplex and triplex units that are terraced to match grade, creating modulation and scale that mimic a single family streetscape; the roof pitch and materials also imitate smaller scale residential housing, the architecture has elements of Arts and Crafts style, including third floor bay windows, shingle siding, and deep roof overhangs; and, there is extensive landscaping. [Kovach testimony; Site plans, Exhibit 1; Staff Report, at 2-3, 13]. As summarized by the City, "The architectural details, paned windows, multi-layered modulation of facades, and differing surface materials, textures, and colors would result in visually interesting structures at a more human scale than would otherwise seem apparent." [Staff Report, at 3]. The City acknowledges that these design features would not only enhance the quality and value of the Grant A venue Homes Project but also benefit the surrounding neighborhoods, both aesthetically and with regard to property values. See, Staff Report, at 13 ("The architectural design and landscaping of the site would ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic ofthe neighborhood." The Grant Avenue Homes Project is bordered to the south by Heritage Village, another multi-family residential development which abuts the south sideyard. The Heritage Village property is in the same Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zone as the Project site. [Staff Report, at 2]. The Heritage Village development also has a similar density to the Project: Heritage Village is 16.16 duJa; Grant Avenue Homes would be 17.06 duJa. [Staff Report, at 10]. Heritage Village is a 30 unit condominium project constructed in 1988; it is flat plate (i.e. no modulation) multi-unit development, consisting of flats with open parking or carports. [Staff Report, page 6-7; Photos, Exhibit 2]. During Site Plan Review, Tridor voluntarily agreed to construct a privacy fence on the south boundary to enhance the line of well-established evergreen trees and laurel hedge that already exist between the Project site and Heritage Village. [Kovach testimony; LSite plans, Exhibit 1; Photos, Exhibit 2]. In accordance with Condition 5 of 3 the Approved Site Plan, the landscaping plan has already been revised to provide for additional landscaping where buildings of the Grant Avenue Homes and the Heritage Village Condominiums face each other to provide partial building screening, without light blockage, at maturity of vegetation. [Staff Report, at 14; Revised landscaping plan, Exhibit 3]. The three story configuration of Grant Avenue Homes also means that the two developments do not have like-activity line of sight (i.e. the main living areas are on different levels in each development as compared to a mirror image development). [Site plans, Exhibit I; Kovach testimony]. The two sites also have differing elevations and the Project buildings have been stepped in height to match grade. [Kovach testimony]. During the Site Plan Review process, Tridor was not notified of any setback issues during the City's internal review, was not given an opportunity to respond as to the reasonableness of any recommended conditions, and no public hearing was held in connection with the Site Plan Review. See, R.M.C. 4-9-200.0.6. [Kovach testimony; Staff Report]. During pre-application review, the City indicated that the south side setback would be the standard side setback requirement for a three-story building on a lot of this width, i.e. 13 feet. [Pre-Application Memo, Exhibit 4, page 2]. Tridor was therefore surprised when the Site Plan Approval contained a condition requiring it to nearly double the south side yard setback by reducing, if necessary, the size of the floor plans of nearly half of the project units: "The site plan shall be revised, by reducing the size of the floor plans if necessary, to increase the south side yard building setback to a minimum of 25 feet where buildings 8 through 12 would be located." Condition 4, Staff Report, at 14. Tridor will be working in consultation with City staff to revise the site plans to redesign or eliminate decks so that they do not encroach into the side setback areas (in order to satisfy Condition 3), and has already revised the landscaping plan to provide for partial building screening where buildings of the Grant A venue Homes and the Heritage Village Condominiums face each other (in order to satisfy Condition 5). Tridor will also comply with Conditions I and 6. Changes could be made to address Condition 2 (requiring a fourplex in place of the current triplex attached to a single unit) but such changes do not appear to be required under the Code. The 25-foot side yard setback 4 (Condition 4) significantly reduces the amount of development that is otherwise permitted by the Renton Municipal Code, and jeopardizes the viability of the entire Project. III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Hearing Examiner should reverse the Department's decision to impose the Setback Condition. The substantial rights of the Applicant are prejudiced by the decision to impose the condition because that decision is in excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the Department, and/or affected by another error of law, and/or clearly erroneous in view of the entire record as submitted, and/or arbitrary or capricious. R.M.C., 4-8- 110.E.7.b. In imposing the Setback Condition the City erroneously relied on a Code proVIsIOn that only applies when the abutting property is zoned for less intense development. Here, the abutting property is in the same zone. In the alternative, the Setback Condition exceeds the discretionary authority of the City since it unreasonably reduces the amount of development that is otherwise permitted by the Code. It nearly doubles the standard setback, equates to a loss of approximately 11 ,070 square feet, which is 34% of the square $2,000,000 in Project value. footage in the buildings affected, and represents over Furthermore, the alleged impacts used to justify the Condition are not supported by the facts. Potential privacy impacts are addressed by existing tall trees, additional landscaping, a privacy fence and variations in elevation between the two developments. Lighting impacts are by definition minimal since the Project site is the north of the neighbors and large trees already provide significant shade. The City'S own assessment acknowledges that the Project is visually attractive and will benefit property values in the area. Condition 4 should therefore be repealed. The Hearing Examiner should also consider removing Condition 2 (requiring substitution ofa fourplex), since it is premised on an error oflaw. R.M.C., 4-8-11O.E.7.b. The proposed structure does appear to be authorized as an "attached" dwelling under the Code because the triplex in question is, in fact, attached to the single unit with a common 5 breezeway roof. If the structure is not construed as an attached dwelling, then it is an unclassified use and the City should exercise its discretion to allow it. IV. ARGUMENT A. Setback Condition 1. Setback Condition Based on Erroneous Application of City Code The Setback Condition is premised on a legal error and, as a result, it exceeds the authority or jurisdiction of the Department. The standard side yard setback for the Grant Avenue Homes Project is 13 feet. More specifically, in the RM-F zone, the standard setback for attached residential units is 12 feet and an additional I foot is added for each story in excess of two. R.M.C.4-2-110F. The Grant Avenue Homes have three stories. Thus, the City Code prima facie requires the Project to have a side yard setback of 13 feet. [Staff Report, at 9]. The Project as proposed has a 13 foot side yard setback and is thus in compliance with the standard minimum sideyard setback. The City has wrongly relied upon a discretionary provision to nearly double this side setback requirement on the south side of the Project. The Code provides, under Special Design Standards, that: • Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g., additional landscaping, larger setbacks, fayade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site development plan review process. R.M.C. 4-2-110F (all emphasis added).l The plain langnage of the Code thus only authorizes larger setbacks where the abutting zone is for less intense residential development. For example, the R-14 zone allows 14 dwelling units per net acre and is therefore a less intense residential zone as compared with RM-F which allows 20 units per net acre. Id. Similarly, the R -8 zone allows 8 dwelling units per net acre and is therefore a less intense residential zone as compared with RM-F. !d. Indeed, during Pre- I Similarly, the Comprehensive Plan provides that it is the lower density "zone" that triggers authorization for increased setbacks. "Evaluate project proposals in Residential multi-family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones." Policy LU-188. 6 Application review for the Project, the City acknowledged that, in this case, the Special Design Standards are relevant to the adjacent R-8 zone.2 [Pre-Application Memo, Exhibit 4, page 2]. The Code does not, by comparison, authorize larger setbacks where the actual development on the abutting properties happens to be less intense than that proposed. (In fact, in this case the actual intensity of the abutting Heritage Village property is similar).3 Yet, the City has applied the Setback Condition to the south side of the Project site, which has the identical zoning designation as the Project site. Like the Project site, the properties to the south are zoned Residential -Multi-Family. Thus, the density and other standards that apply to the abutting properties are the same. The abutting zone is not less intense, it is exactly the same. The Department accordingly was not authorized by the Code to increase the side setback of the Project. The Department's decision to impose the Condition is an error of law and should be reversed. 2. The Scope and Import of the Setback Condition is Unreasonable and Not Authorized by the Code In the alternative, even if the Department was somehow authorized to increase the south side yard setback, the Setback Condition exceeds the discretionary authority of the City since it unreasonably reduces the amount of development that is otherwise permitted by the Code. The Renton Municipal Code indicates that any conditions imposed on a Site Plan Review should be ''reasonable.'' R.M.C. 4-9-200.G.13.c. The very intent of the Site Plan process is to assure that ''reasonable'' provisions have been made to address neighboring owners and uses. R.M.C. 4-9-200.A.6. The examples provided in the Code suggest that Site Plan conditions are intended to be limited to design-related features and/or not dramatically change the scope of the 2 "Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g. additional landscaping, larger setbacks, facade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review process. Since the site abuts the R-8 zone to the east, where existing single family homes are located, staff strongly encourages the applicant to incorporate a minimum of one of the special design standards into the site." 3 In this case, and as acknowledged in the Staff Report, the abutting Heritage Village development has a "similar" density to the Project: Heritage Village is 16.16 duJa; Grant Avenue Homes would be 17.06 duJa. See, Staff Report, at 10. 7 project. Under the canon of construction ejusdem generis, where specific examples are provided, the general group is limited to examples of the same kinds, class, or nature. In the Renton Municipal Code, the illustrative list of conditions that may be imposed during Site Plan Review suggest that the lawful scope of such conditions does not include material changes to scope and scale: Such conditions or modification may include, but are not limited to, screening, buffering, building location and orientation, paving, landscaping, vegetation removal, grading and contouring. The Hearing Examiner shall also have the power to fix the location and configuration of driveways, walkways, parking and loading areas, emergency access, curbs, planting areas, and signs. R.M.C. 4-9-200.G.13.c.4 Similarly, the examples of "special design standards" (for properties abutting a less intense residential zone) do not suggest that Code drafters anticipated major changes to the scope and scale of a project proposal. They are, after all, design standards and the list as a whole is consistent with that notion: "e.g. additional landscaping, larger setbacks, far,:ade articulation, solar access, fencing." R.M.C.4-2-110F. In this case, the Setback Condition is patently unreasonable: it nearly doubles the standard sideyard setback requirement; requires a dramatic reduction in Project scope; and jeopardizes the economic viability of the Project. To reduce the floor plans of buildings 8 through 12 would equate to a loss in square footage of 678 square feet in 11 units and a loss of 722 square feet in another 5 units. This amounts to a total reduction of square footage for buildings 8 through 12 of 11,068 square feet of living space, or 34% percent of the original square footage of these buildings. On average the projected market value per unit in the Project is $385,000, which equates to a value per square foot of$193. Thus, the total loss in Project value due to the proposed south side setback would be $2,136,124 (11,068 sq feet x $193). A change of this magnitude renders the entire south half of the Project unviable and consequently jeopardizes the economic viability of the Project as a whole. 4 This provision relates to situations where the Site Plan Review decision is being made after a public hearing, but by analogy would apply equally where Staff is making a decision in the absence of a hearing. 8 To impose such limitations on a permitted use that has been carefully designed to meet or exceed Code requirements amounts to an unreasonable restriction on the use of the property. The Grant Avenue Homes Project is consistent with the goals and purpose of the RM-F zone in terms of housing needs, livability, safety, and infrastructure. Great care has been taken to design a high-quality project that meets such goals and conforms to development standards. The Setback Condition would have dramatic implications for the overall architectural and economic model for the project, and would upset its carefully designed conformity with City goals and standards. For example, the Setback Condition would make it difficult if not impossible for the Project to satisfY the minimum density requirements in the RM-F zone. The implications of the Setback Condition for the overall project plan are simply unreasonable and not reconcilable with the scope of authority granted under the Code. 3. The Setback Condition is Arbitrary and Capricious because the Alleged Impacts are not Supported by the Facts In the alternative, even if the Department was somehow authorized to increase the south side yard setback, the Setback Condition is also arbitrary and capricious (and therefore unlawful) because the alleged impacts used to justifY the Condition are not supported by the facts or the City'S analysis. The Washington Supreme Court has held that where a Council conditions a permit (for example, by reducing the size of the project) the decision must describe the adverse impact of an applicant's proposal and how, for example, reducing the size of the project would mitigate any such adverse impact; otherwise the decision is arbitrary and capricious. Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wash.2d 706 (1997). In this case the City has not, and cannot, provide a robust analysis of the impacts of the project and how the Setback Condition would address them since the facts it would need simply do not exist. In particular, with regards to privacy the City'S decision makes only conciusory statements about the privacy impacts to Heritage Village and these statements are not reconcilable with the facts. Only two of the buildings in Heritage Village face the Project site. [Survey Plan of Heritage Village, Exhibit 5]. In addition, topographical differences between the Project site and Heritage Village, together with variations in the 9 Project's floor elevations, operate to minimize potential privacy impacts. The difference in grade steps between the two sites is as much as 5 ft. near the west end of the site. Moreover, the Project buildings step in height (at least once per building) to match the grade of the Project site. "The average floor elevations at Heritage Village are thus above those in the proposed Project (relative to grade). These elevation differences avoid direct line of sight between units such that occupants will not be looking "eye to eye," and this is significant for privacy impacts. [Kovach testimony]. In addition, the three story configuration of the Grant Avenue Homes offsets like-activity line of sight by lifting the main living areas off the ground. [Site plans, Exhibit I]. Heritage Village buildings thus receive a greater degree of privacy from this configuration as compared to a mirror image of that development. [Kovach testimony]. Furthermore, there is also significant privacy screening either already in place or planned as part of the Project proposal. There is already a dense line of well established evergreen trees along the property line with Heritage Village, as well as a tall Laurel hedge in places. [Photos, Exhibit 2]. As outlined above, Tridor has agreed to construct a privacy fence on the South boundary. [Site Plans, Exhibit I; Landscaping Plan, Exhibit 3]. In addition, the landscaping plan has already been revised to provide for additional landscaping where buildings of the Grant Avenue Homes and the Heritage Village Condominiums face each other to provide screening in accordance with Condition 5. [Kovach testimony; Landscaping Plan, Exhibit 3]. With regard to light, again there are only conc1usory statements about the impacts to Heritage Village that are not reconcilable with the facts. The critical fact is that the proposed Project is north of Heritage Village and it will thus, by definition, have only limited impacts on light. [Kovach testimony]. In addition, as indicated above, there are already large evergreen trees on that boundary line. [Photos; Exhibit 2]. The facts regarding visual impacts also do not square with the conc1usory analysis. Numerous architectural features are incorporated into the Project to enhance its aesthetic appeal and compatibility with surrounding residential neighborhoods. As outlined above, the Project is terraced to match grade, creating modulation and scale that 10 mimic a single family streetscape; the roof pitch and materials also imitate smaller scale residential housing; the architecture has elements of Arts and Crafts style, including third floor bay windows, shingle siding, and deep roof overhangs; and, there is extensive landscaping. [Kovach testimony; Site plans, Exhibit 1; Staff Report, at 2-3, 13). The proposed height reflects the roof pitch, which in turn was designed to create well- proportioned structures, and to mimic the aesthetically pleasing roof pitch of single family housing (including in the Rolling Hills development to the east). [Kovach testimony). Furthermore, the fact that Heritage Village floor elevations are above those of the Project (relative to grade) means that the perceived height of the Project buildings is reduced. [Kovach testimony]. The City has acknowledged that these architectural features result in visually interesting structures and promote a sense of human scale. [Staff Report, at 3). These features were not required by the City development standards, add significant expense to the Project, but result in a highly attractive project. As the City has also acknowledged, the Project would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. See, Staff Report, at 13 ("The architectural design and landscaping of the site would ensure that the property would make a positive contribution to the physical condition and visual aesthetic of the neighborhood."). There are no contrary facts or analysis to support a finding that the Project would have a negative visual impact on Heritage Village or on its property value. B. Fourplex Condition is Affected by an Error of Law Condition 2 requires Iridor to substitute a fourplex for a proposed triplex that is attached to a single-family unit by a breezeway, on the basis that this structure is not an allowed use under the Code.5 While Iridor could make this change (albeit with considerable cost), it would appear that there is in fact a legal basis for allowing the structure as proposed. In particular, the proposed structure does, arguably, fall within the definition of "attached dwelling" because the triplex and single unit are attached by the , In the RM-F zone, "attached dwellings" are the only residential use listed as allowed (apart from certain existing dwellings). RMC 4-2-070H. 11 common roof of the breezeway. See. North Elevation 4Plex, Exhibit 6. A common roof is all that is required under the definition of "attached dwelling": Dwelling, Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to one or more one-family dwellings by common roofs, walls, or floors. This definition may also include a dwelling unit or units attached to garages or other nonresidential uses. This definition does not include retirement residences, boarding and lodging houses, accessory dwelling units, adult family homes, group home I or group home II as defmed herein. RMC 4-11-010 (emphasis added). In this case, the buildings are not separate; they are connected by some common roof and thus should be permitted. Alternatively, the proposed structure is an "unclassified" use and is thus allowable on the basis that it is sufficiently similar to an attached dwelling, and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone and the Comprehensive Plan policies. RMC 4-2-050. The proposed structure is not a "semi-attached" dwelling since that definition refers solely to situations where a one-family dwelling is attached to "only one other one-family dwelling." RMC 4-11-010.6 Here, the one-family dwelling is attached to three other one-family dwellings (the triplex). Thus, if the proposed structure is also not an attached dwelling, it is an unclassified use. The City has discretion to allow an unclassified use if it is similar in nature and no more intense than a specifically permitted use, in keeping with the purpose and intent of the zone, and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. RMC 4-2-050. As outlined above, the proposed structure is so similar to an attached dwelling that it could in fact be construed as one (and, if anything, is less intense). Moreover, the proposed structure is fully consistent with the policies and goals of RM-F, viz., encouraging a range of multi-family, high-quality, living environments while achieving a certain density. [Staff Report, pages 5-6]. It provides for a wider range of living options within the Project and enhances the overall quality by providing architectural diversity. 6 Dwelling, Semi-Attached: A one-family dwelling attached to only one other one-family dwelling at secondary or ancillary building parts such as garages, carports, trellises, porches, covered decks, or other secondary connection approved by the City, and not connected at building parts containing living areas. 12 Thus, there would appear to be a lawful basis for allowing the use and Tridor therefore requests that the Hearing Examiner consider repealing Condition 2. It seems unreasonable to require a relatively significant structural modification on the basis of ambiguous Code language, especially when the proposed structure enhances the range and quality ofliving options and the aesthetic features of the Project. V. RELIEF SOUGHT Given that the City's decision to impose Conditions 2 and 4 are based on errors of law, exceed the City'S legal authority, and/or are arbitrary and capricious, the Appellant requests that the Hearing Examiner repeal these Conditions. Respectfully submitted this 2A sI--day of June, 2007 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP ~- Attorney for Appellant, Tridor, Inc. 13 EXHIBIT 1 -SITE PLANS AND ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS 14 « • + [ I E , ~ , I/. \) fl ~i • ~ • J l: " : • • L ~ • " , I • ~ t t • ~ i ~ ~ ~ • • • ? 9 , • z • a • ~ ~ ~ • ~ • " ~ I " • • "~ , • I ~ • P i:l '\ .'" , 1 :;: i : i ' I :-1 :1 :! "-1.;' , 5, J ;i i : i , I ~u~' __ :._..1 i~Ti! b: :: :: _....:.-:. 5. 'I )J cttt'··-~ , , it :r I , ' , : i ~ i! ~ edt',' I : r ~ -1:.' \ ".I, J ~ i ~L I' I ; i "L.\ ,5, J I =<c; : t B , ~ ~"""l i; .o-.a: 01 • ~ J __ ti , I } , , . '-Ii , " , , , , . •• , Fl! (? j ~_5~) i I"i ,,", I '! ('J- \ ,'l_ , I '~, ,l, , I: !:t 1: -r'"'-~ I ~ I i J- , " • • o ~ J { I • ~ ) ii • J " " m § . ---1 ,-"-_ ... _---' _ i @" , @ • @ n @ 8 , 8 ... ~ , • , • " e 8 , 8 .8 , n 8 G' , , ", , , Q \1 " , p " , ~ I " '\ i' ~ I " , \1 " " ',' " , " (I , r:; " , ~ , ", Z 0 l-~ ~ III , ~ -1 ~ III I l- ~ [--___ ~----I _..,.. eSC--cON ~ =lev.316DO aUL-OINC=; .A-. UNII' , • .,... _C'TICN .. eUl-OING.A UNIT ~ AI.,.. esc-eN CC FF Elev. 3'8.00 eUL-OINS.-Ao.r. UNI'j" S I" '--- -.. "-, .,. __ CIOO"'''' "&NCIl PIO!QPe;:r;!TY LNE eUI-OING ,e. UNI""i e ::>ROPERTY eN' 3·4.50 II "'" e~,"'''''L..L..':;;.''''''''''''''''CIl BUI...-DINGP e UNII' C ... F=F E!ev. 31450 .... '-I CJ '" '---F-c:::J PlWP8O!TY C~ e ~ . .,. ........... cooc:>_ ·.,..,.cO! eUL-OING Sf; UNI"-A Al~ "=-r1-QN, OCt FF Elev. 324.CO eUI.-DIN(# B UNIT' • .,... _C'TI.CN •• FF E!ev. 326.00 eUI-OING e UNI-r" ~ AlTW '-~k'QNI .. FF Elev. 326.00 aUL...-OIN<:3 e UNIT .3 ~P6itTY CN' ~Pe;:!.TY LINE Pli!CP~ c.JNE I.e. Elev. "''' '--.. ""'. T .... L.._ co!D.""R """"cO! eUl-OlNG '0 UNIT e Do ~= Elev. 325.50 II "" c e ".,. • .,. .... _L.. CaD""" "'.,...ca eUL-DING '0 UNI"-c: Doi Elev. .... -e ,..,.. T .... L..L.. cO!D.o.. .. "'I!NCO! eUl-OlNG " UNI-r ...Ao.. EXHIBIT 2 -PHOTOS, HERITAGE VILLAGE AND TREES 15 • HERITAGE VILLAGE FROM GRANT AVENUE , EVERGREENS ON PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY TO LEFf (NORTH) r r- <: .... t"l ~ ~ ~ 0 :s: ." ~ 0 .... t"l ~ .., '" -.., .,...., t"l 0 • ~ It :---~ _ .. - t"l .~ ...... • -" --. ~ . "- "-'" .., -,; z C"l .., .. ':::- ~ t"l '" ~ 0 ~. • :c t"l ~ ~ ... .., ;I> C"l t"l <: ... t"" t"" ;I> C"l t"l t:c t"l -< 0 ~ .2.0. VIEW FROM HERITAGE VILLAGE PARKING LOT TOWARD PROJECT SITE WITH EXISTING LAUREL HEDGE EXHIBIT 3 -REVISED LANDSCAPING PLAN 16 '[ , ! n, 0 ._; I I. ~ J r (tl ~ II \-', :; t ;djll .!l! -., ~ 0 i Ii ~ IJ I ~:::;;o"":a..!..:;!!'EI co£:. , 9 ' ~ ~ fu ~ I , ~ t " , ~ , ~,I ~ '.~ '6 r I I 0' £r ~ I " !" 1 ~. >1' ! r ! " ~ '",& ~') ,,~ j i' fJilll , / jl <, , ' g " ~., ';,1 I I II , I I , = ;,. I 1 • o ~ f j I • EXHIBIT 4 -PRE-APPLICATION MEMO 17 PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: June 16, 2005 TO: Pre-Application File No. 05-076 FROM: Susan Fiala, Senior Planner, (425) 430-7382 SUBJECT: Grant's Place Condos-(1600 Grant Ave. S.) General: We have completed a preliminary review of the pre-application for the above- referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre-application submittals made to the City of Renton by the applicant and the codes in effect on the date of review. The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision-makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Zoning Administrator, Board of Adjustment, Board of Public Works, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code. The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00, plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall. NOTE: In advance of submitting the full land use application package, applicants are strongly encouraged to bring in one copy of each application material for a pre-screening to the customer service counter to help ensure that the application is complete prior to making all copies. Project Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct 39, three-bedroom townhouses in 13 triplex buildings on a 2.12 acre site. The townhouse styled condos are proposed to be three stories with a lower level garage and two stories of living space. The units would be condominiums and range in size from 1,600 to 1,800 sq. ft. per unit. ZoninglDensity Reqnirements: The subject property is located within the Residential Multi- Family (RM-F) zoning designation. The density range required in the RM-F zone is a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20 dwelling units per acre (dulac). The method of calculating net density is as follows: A calculation of the number of housing units and/or lots that would be allowed on a property after critical areas and public rights-ol-way and legally recorded private access easements are subtracted from the gross area (gross acres minus public streets, easements and critical areas multiplied by allowable housing units per acre). Required critical area buffers and public and private alleys shall not be subtracted from gross acres for the purpose of net density calculations. No additional deductions appear necessary unless further research/information by the applicant dictates otherwise. Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 2 of 8 Based on a site area of2.12 acres with 39 units, the proposed density would be IS.39 dulac, which is within the allowed density range. This calculation did not include any required deductions; therefore if any critical areas are found they would be deducted from the gross site area and would affect the above density calculation. For the formal land use submittal, all square footages must be accurately provided to determine the exact density and its compliance with the RM-F zone. Development Standards: The development of the site would require compliance with the applicable standards of the RM-F zone as discussed below: Minimum Lot Size, Width and Depth -No new lots are proposed as indicated in the pre- application materials. There is no minimum lot size in the RM-F zone. If, the applicant chooses to subdivide the property, a minimum lot width of 50 ft. and lot depth of 65 ft. are required. Setbacks -Setbacks are measured from the property lines to the nearest point of the structure. The required setbacks in the RM-F zone are 20 feet in the front and 15 feet in the rear. Minimum side yard is based on lot width, for lots 11 0.1 + feet requires 12 feet. Additional setback for structures greater than 2 stories, shall be set back an additional I-foot for each story in excess of2 stories, maximum of20-foot setback. Unless specified by the development standards, no portions of the structure may project into the required setback areas (refer to RMC section 4-2-11 O.H.S -"Allowed projections into setbacks''). Building Standards -The RM-F zone restricts building height to 35 feet and 3 stories. Additional height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained through the site plan review process depending on the compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent existing residential development. In no case shall the height of the residential structure exceed 45 feet. Lot coverage by buildings is limited to a maximum of 35%; however, maximum coverage may be increased to 45% with Hearing Examiner approval. In addition, a combined total of 75% of the lot area may be covered with impervious surfaces such as building footprint, sidewalks, and driveways. Coverage infonnation is required to be provided with the formal submittal ofthe land use application. Landscaping -The RM-F zone also requires all setback and open space areas be landscaped. The site abuts RM-F to the north, south and west and abuts R-S to the east. The Reviewing Official may permit a 10ft. wide landscaped setback with a sight-obscuring solid barrier wall in lieu of the 15 ft. as described in RMC 4-2-110.H.17. Street frontage landscaping is required. All landscaped areas must include an underground irrigation system. A Conceptual Landscape Plan is required with the formal submittal of the land use application. ScreeninglRefuse and Recyclables -Screening must be·provided for all outside storage areas, as welJ as for surface-mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment pursuant to RMC 4-4-095. Multi family developments require a specific size and location for refuse and recyclable areas pursuant to RMC section 4-4-090. C and D. Approval of the proposed locations of dumpster Granfs Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 30f8 areas by Rainier Waste Management is recommended -prior to the submittal for building permits (phone: 206-243-4050). The drawings submitted for building permit review will need to include elevations and details on the proposed methods of screening. Access and Parking: Access is proposed via Grant Ave. S. to a new internal private driveway serving the 39 units. The length of the road requires a cul-de-sac for turning around. For attached dwellings, each lot is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles where tandem spaces are not provided or 2.5 spaces per unit where tandem parking is provided. Surface parking is permitted in the side and rear yards only. The applicant is proposing two spaces located within enclosed private garages on the ground level of each town home unit. Special Design Standards: Properties abutting a less intense residential zone may be required to incorporate special design standards (e.g. additional landscaping, larger setbacks, fayade articulation, solar access, fencing) through the site plan review process. Since the site abuts the R-8 zone to tbe east, where existing single family homes are located, staff strongly encourages the applicant to incorporate a minimum of one of the special design standards into tbe site. Sensitive Areas: Based on tbe City'S Critical Areas Maps, the site is located within critical areas, including: Geologic Hazards (steep slopes), coal mine hazards, erosion bazards and landslide hazards. Geologic Hazards -The site appears to contain areas of 15% and possibly 25% slopes as shown on the City's Slope Analysis map. As required by the City'S Critical Areas Regulations, a slope delineation indicating the location of "sensitive" slopes will be required as part of the formal land use application. Sensitive slopes have grades from 25% to 40%. Specific standards also apply for development located within sensitive slopes, landslide and erosion hazard areas. Protected slopes are defined as topographical features that slope in excess of 40% and have a vertical rise of 15 feet or more. Pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC4-3-050J) the applicant will be required to obtain a geotechnical report stamped and signed from a Geotechnical Engineer stating that the proposed development is suitable with respect to the current site conditions for soils, slopes, landslides, erosion, etc. In addition, the report would need to address any special construction requirements deemed necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Through the site plan review process, the City may condition the approval of the development in order to require mitigation of any potential hazards based on the results of the studies. In addition, pursuant to RMC section 4-3-050.J.3, the geotechnical report submitted with the application may be required to undergo independent secondary review by a qualified specialist selected by the City at the applicant's expense. Coal Mine hazards are within the site and within 200 and 500 feet of the site. According to RMC 4-3-050.1.8., these hazards are to be reviewed and addressed in a coal mine assessment report. 076_ GrantsCondos_RMF.dOC Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 4 of 8 A coal mine assessment report may be required-as part of the formal land use application. Environmental Review: The project requires SEPA review due to the number of units (greater than four dwelling units) and the presence of critical areas. The proposal would be brought to the Environmental Review Committee for review as it is their charge to make threshold determinations for environmental checklists. Typically, mitigation of impacts is accomplished through fees related to issues such as transportation, fire and parks as well as measures to reduce impacts to environmental elements. Site Plan Review: AU development within the RM-F zone requires Site Plan review, unless categorically exempt from SEPA review. The intent of site plan review is to review site layout, building orientation, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping, parking and other elements. Site planning is the horizontal and vertical arrangement of these elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. Permit Reqnirements: All projects initiated that include 4,000 sq. ft. of new building area; more than four dwelling units; or 20 or more parking spaces are subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. All development in the RM-F Zone is subject to Level I Site Plan Review. In review of the criteria to determine if a public hearing is required, the proposal is less than the SEPA thresholds of: 1) greater than 25,000 sq. ft. of . nonresidential uses outside of the EA-V; The other thresholds include: 2) greater than 300 parking stalls; 3) greater than 10 acres; and 4) 4 stories or greater than 60 feet in height. therefore, the site plan, as proposed, would be reviewed by Administratively. The project would require Administrative Levell Site Plan and Environmental (SEPA) Review. These permits would be reviewed in an estimated timeframe of 8 to 10 weeks. The application fee for joint land use applications is full price for the most expensive permit (Administrative Site Plan at $1,000.00) and half off any subsequent permits: and Yz of full fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) which is dependent on project value: less than $100,000 is $200.00 (112 of $400 full fee) and project value over $100,000 is a $500.00 fee (112 of$I,OOO full fee). The application fee would be $1,500.00 ($1,000.00 for the Administrative Site Plan review, and $500.00 for Environmental (SEPA) Review). Staff would prepare the notification list and labels for properties within 300 ft. of the site. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Fees: In addition to the applicable building and construction permit fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the recording of the plat. • A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per each ~ average daily trip attributable to the project; and, • A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $388.00 per new multifamily unit; and • A Parks Mitigation Fee based on $354.51 per new multi-family unit. A handout listing all of the City'S Development related fees in attached for your review. Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 5 of 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The existing development is located within the Residential Multi Family (RM-F) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation. It is the intent of the objectives and policies of this designation that a range of multi family living environments provide shelter for a wide variety of people in differing living situations, from all income levels, and in all stages of life. The proposed site plan generally appears to comply with the following objectives and policies: Residential Multi Family Land Use Designation: Objective LU-JJ: Encourage the development of injill parcels with quality projects in existing multi family districts. Policy LU-I82. Residential multi family designations should be in areas of the City where projects would be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle impacts from higher density uses. Policy LU-I8S. Development density in the Residential Multi family designation should be within a range of 1 0 dulac as a minimum to 20 dulac as a maximum. Objective LU-KK: Due to increased impacts to privacy and personal living space inherent in higher density living environments, new development should be designed to create a high quality living environment. Policy LU-I86. New stacked flat and townhouse development in Residential Multi family designations should be compatible in size, scale, bulk, use and design with existing multi family developments in the vicinity. Policy LU-188. Evaluate project proposals in Residential Multi-family designations to consider the transition to lower density uses where multi-family sites abut lower density zones. Setbacks may be increased, heights reduced, and additional landscape buffering required through site plan review. Implementing code will be put in place within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. I) In order to increase the potential compatibility of multi-family projects, with other projects of similar use and density, minimum setbacks for side yards should be proportional to the total lot width, i.e. wider lots should require larger setback dimensions; 2) Taller buildings (greater than two stories) should have larger side yard setback dimensions; and Heights of buildings should be limited to three stories and thirty-five (35) feet, unless greater heights can be demonstrated to be compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Objective LU-LL: New Residential Multi-family projects should demonstrate provision of an environment that contributes to a high quality of life for fUture residents, regardless of income level. Implementing code will be put in place within two years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. 076_GrantsCondos_RMF.doc Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 6 of 8 Policy LU-J89. Support project design that incorporates the following. or similar elements. in architectural design: 1) Variation offacades on all sides of structures visiblefrom the street with vertical and horizontal modulation or articulation; 2) Angular roof lines on mUltiple planes and with roof edge articulation such as modulated cornices; 3) Private entries from the public sidewalk fronting the buildingfor ground jloor units; 4) Groundjloor units elevatedfrom sidewalk level; 5) Upper-level access interior to the building; 6) Balconies that serve as functional open space for individual units; and 7) Common entryways with canopy or similar feature. Policy LU-190. Support project site planning that incorporates the following. or similar elements. in order to meet the intent of the objective: 1) Buildings oriented toward public streets. 2) Private open space for ground-related units. 3) Common open or green space in sufficient amount to be useful. 4) Preferably underground parking or structured parking located under the residential building. 5) Surface parking. if necessary. to be located to the side or rear of the residential building(s). 6) Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property. and 7) Landscaping. consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum). of all setbacks and rights-ofway abutting the property. Implementation of this policy should be phased within three years of the adoption of the 2004 Update. Policy LU-191. Residential Multi-family projects in the RMF zone should have a maximum site coverage by bUildings of thirty-five (35) percent, or forty-five (45) percent if greater coverage can be demonstrated to be both mitigated on site with amenities and compatible with existing buildings on abutting and adjacent lots. Policy LU-I92. Residential Multi-family projects should have maximum site coverage by impervious materials of seventy-five (75) percent. Community Design Element: A. Site Planning: Site planning is the art and science of arranging structures, open space, and non-structural elements on land in a functional way so that the purpose of the development can be met, while keeping those elements in harmony with each other and with the context of the project. Objective CD-D: New neighborhood development patterns should be consistent with Renton's established neighborhoods and have an interconnected road network. Policy CD-I 7. Development should be designed (e.g. building orientation. setbacks. landscape areas and open space. parking. and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high Grant's Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 7 of 8 quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Policy CD-18. Projects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges when the following criteria are fully addressed in project level submission. a. Trees are retained. relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality-walking environment in an urban context. b. Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private recreation/outdoor space for each resulting lot. c. Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and maintain privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Architectural and landscape design should: • Prevent window and door openings looking directly into another structure, • Prevent over-reliance on fencing, or • Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a pattern that reduces provision of light, visual separation, and/or require variances of modification of standards. Density may be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance with these criteria. Policy CD-19. During development, significant trees, either individually or in stands, should be preserved, replaced, or as a last option, relocated. Policy CD-24. Site design of development should relate, connect and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. Policy CD-25. Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise, vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed denSity range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. D. Architecture: It is not the intent of these policies to dictate the architectural style of structures in the City of Renton. The Community Design architectural policies are intended to encourage design of structures that fit well into the neighborhood, reflect the physical character of Renton, mitigate potential negative impacts of development, and function well in meeting the needs of both the building occupant and the community. Objective CD-G: Architecture should be distinctive and contribute to the community aesthetic. Policy CD-40. Structures should be designed (e.g. building height, orientation, materials, color and bulk,) to mitigate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors. Policy CD-42. Design characteristics in larger new developments or individual building complexes should contribute to neighborhood and/or district identity. Objective CD-H: Ensure that structures built in residential areas are consistent with the City's adopted land use vision and Purpose Statements for each Land Use Designation found in the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Residential Policies. 076_ GrantsCondos _ RMF.doc Granfs Place Condos Pre Application Meeting Page 801 8 Policy CD-43. A variety of architectural design and detailing should be encouraged as long as site fUnctions connect to adjacent development. Innovative use of building mate- rials and finishes should be promoted. Policy CD-44. Development should provide appropriate landscaping and. far;ade treatment when located along designated City arterials or adjacent to less intense developments in order to mitigate potentially adverse visual or other impacts. E. Landscaping: Landscaping is a key element of the City. It can be used to create distinctive character for developments, neighborhoods and along city streets; to frame views; to block unsightly views; or mitigate the scale of large buildings. It can also be used to reduce traffic noise levels and the effects of pollution. Policy CD-45. Existing mature vegetation and distinctive trees should be retained and protected in developments. Policy CD-50. Trees should be planted along residential streets, in parking lots requiring landscaping, and in other perviOUS areas as the opportunity arises. Trees should be retained whenever possible and maintained using Best Management Practices as appropriate for each type. Objective CD-K: Site plans for new development projects for all uses, including residential subdivisions, should include landscape plans. Policy CD-53. Landscape plans for proposed development projects should include public entryways, street rights-ol-way, stormwater detention ponds, and all common areas. Policy CD-54. Residential subdivisions and multi-family residential projects should include planting of street trees according to an adopted citywide landscape plan. Policy CD-55. Maintenance programs should be required for landscaped areas in development projects, including entryways, street rights-ol-way, stormwater retention/detention ponds, and common areas. Policy CD-56. Surface water retention/detention ponds should be landscaped appropriately for the location of the facility. EXHIBIT 5 -SURVEY PLAN OF HERITAGE VILLAGE 18 ..... --_._------------------- .. ,,~ .1."------.--;?"""':: c.~,.:.).-.-·------ _-----__ . .-i- -..,--~-.:.--.-- ..... ..::::: .. ::::: .... ... Renton City Limits Parcels r- 100 .... Renton SCALE 1 : 2,276 ~ I 0 100 200 300 FEET http://rentonnet.org/MapGuide/maps/Parcel.mwf 5·8 N A Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:37 PM EXHIBIT 6 -NORTH ELEVATION 4PLEX 19 ~, e , , '~ ~ e N 9 II .S , n ~ , G ~ , 8 " I , e h) ~ , • ro' ~ (' e " I , e !i , ® '1 , § , n ~ @ , , § , I) , @ 9 !l , 0 , @ , , @ , 9' !l , @ ~ n ~ '1 , ® ~ , ® , , , ® N ,