Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutChelan Creek PUD, Preliminary Planned Urban Development Preliminary PlatMinutes APPLICANT/OWNER: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Linda Pillo 541136"' Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 CONTACT: Jim Hanson Hanson Consulting 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 LOCATION: February 5, 2009 Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA 08-067, PPUD, PP, ECF, CAE, CAE Tax ID# 102305-9106 and #102305-9440 922 Chelan Avenue SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Requesting Preliminary Planned Urban Development, Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision of a 4.21 -acre site into 16 lots for the eventual development of single-family residences, with two access tracts. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on December 22, 2008. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the December 30, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, December 30, 2008, at 9:03 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Aerial Photo Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 2 Exhibit No. 3: Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit No. 4: Preliminary Plat/PPUD Plan Exhibit No. 5: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 6: Chelan Creels Design Guidelines Exhibit No. 7: Wetland Mitigation Plan showing Pedestrian Pathway Exhibit No. 8: Illustration of Normal Plat Plan The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposed project would be located in northeast Renton on the west side of Duvall Ave NE between NE 10th Street and NE 8th Street. A lot adjustment is currently pending to adjust the lot line of a third parcel immediately abutting proposed Lot 16 to the south with the subject property. Two critical area exemptions have been granted for the proposal. The site is zoned R-8 and within the Residential Single -Family Comprehensive Plan Designation (RSF). As part of the PUD the applicant has requested modifications from the street standards and the R-8 development standards, including lot size, width and depth and front yard setbacks. The proposed residential density would be 4.70 du/ac after all deductions. There are two existing homes and several outbuildings on the existing lots, which would be removed prior to construction. The site is vegetated with grass lawns, shrubs and trees. A tree inventory indicates a total of 191 trees of which 81% would remain. The overall elevation change within the site is about 15 feet. The site slopes down from the northeast to the southwest, the slope throughout the site is approximately 4% or less. There is a Class 4 stream and a Category 2 wetland on the project site. The wetland is located within a broad swale through the central portion of the site, Category 2 wetlands require a 50 -foot buffer and a Class 4 stream requires a minimum 35 -foot buffer. A buffer averaging proposal has been approved by staff, which would allow the applicant to reduce the buffer on the west side of the wetland to approximately 25 feet. Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated with six measures. No appeals were filed. The proposal does comply with the following code provisions of the PUD process; preservation and enhancement of natural features, superior landscaping, buffering and screening, superior architectural design, and placement and orientation of structures. Without the PUD it would have been challenging to meet the density requirements. The applicant has proposed to comply with all development standards with the exception of the requested modifications. Applicant would be required to comply with the Chelan Creek Guidelines prepared by staff. In addition, the applicant would be required to provide fencing, landscaping and sidewalks to mirror existing frontage improvements just south of the site along Duvall Ave NE. The lighting plan would contain pedestrian lighting on both sides of the pathway in a staggered configuration. Staff asked to have the pathway extended for better connectivity to Chelan Place NE and back out to Duvall Avenue NE. A split rail fence would be required along the buffer area to provide privacy. The residential driveways should be limited to no more than 9 feet for a single lane and no more than 16 feet for a double lane driveway. That is a deviation from the 20 -foot maximum in the code. The developer would be required, within 2 years of the effective date of the approval of the preliminary plan, to submit a final development plan. The applicant has requested a 3 -year extension, the same time limits of an Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 3 approved preliminary plat for a total of 5 years. Staff agreed to the extension. The existing homes could be retained on the property up to the end of the 5 -year term. Staff recommended that the tot lot be removed due to the safety of children playing in that location and the gazebo should be relocated to the start or end of the pedestrian pathway. A homeowners' association for the development should be established in order to maintain any common improvements and/or tracts within the PUD prior to Final Plat or Final PUD approval. The Examiner stated that the removal of the tot lot may not be a good thing, where lots are smaller and there are more restrictions, it may be necessary to have a play area inside the development. Consistency with Preliminary Plat Criteria: Ms. Timmons continued stating that the proposal is consistent with most of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Design Element policies with the exception of CD 10, CD 82 and T9, which would not be met unless the conditions of approval including lighting, and street frontage improvements along Duvall Ave NE are completed as part of the PUD regulations. Some modifications would be necessary as part of the PUD, Lots 1-3, 5-12 and 14 require a modification from the lot width standards, Lots 1-3, 5, 6, 8 and 11 require modifications from the lot size requirements and Lot 4 requires a modification from the lot depth requirements. Additional modifications would be needed for the front yard setbacks due to the proposed widths of Lots 5, 6 and 14 because they are less than required by code. An access easement exists on the northwest portion of the site that is used by the existing residence. The Fire Department has reviewed the application and is allowing the existing easement to remain as long as the proposed residence for Lot 16 is constructed with a fire sprinkler system. A larger radius would be required on the northeast corner of Lot 12 for emergency vehicle access. The applicant is not proposing to plant two street trees and a 5 -foot landscape strip within the front yards of Lots 1-4. A 10 -foot landscape strip had also been omitted on Lot 13. Traffic, Fire and Parks mitigations fees would apply to this project. The Renton School District has stated that they can accommodate the additional students generated by this proposal. The project site would be served by the City of Renton water and sewer departments. It was recommended that the existing 8 -inch water main be extended for the full frontage of Lot 16. A water main would also need to be constructed within Chelan Place NE and be extended the full frontage of Lot 3. Linda Pillo, 5411 36h Avenue SW, Seattle, WA 98126 stated that she is the trustee of her parents and grandparent's property. She owns the residence that is part of the lot line adjustment, 922 Chelan Avenue NE and she wants to make sure that this development is of the highest quality. When the property was originally purchased, there was no wetland. When Duvall Avenue was constructed a culvert was put in which created the creek that ran through the property. Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, 17446 Mallard Cove Lane, Mt. Vernon, WA 98274, stated that he met with the City approximately one and a half years ago with a regular plat plan. There was no stream or wetland report at that time. The City suggested that they might want to look at doing a PUD on the property since there is such a large area running diagonally through the property that most likely was a stream and a wetland. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 4 The applicant hired a wetland consultant, who identified the stream as a Class 4 Stream and the wetland as a Category 2 wetland. Later an additional wetland biologist was hired to look at it and verified that it was a Class 4 Stream and a Category 2 wetland. When the application was put together, the City asked for a third review, which came back with the same determinations. After all that, a final plan was put together and the City's peer review of that plan was found to be acceptable with a few minor additions, which were made. In the final design the mitigation was increased in the southern area beyond what any of the consultants had suggested. The actual stream and buffer cover approximately 45% of the site. The main modification that they are asking for is lot width and size. The lot depth issue only concerns Lot 4 and it is believed that Lot 4 does meet the definition of lot depth. The northern boundary is about 54 feet and the southern boundary is considerably larger. The average would be in excess of the 65 -foot minimum depth. The PUD was suggested due to the large buffer. A draft of the site without the modifications was prepared, which used a standard 50 -foot wide lot. All lots are 65 -feet deep and over 4,500 square feet. In order to achieve the lot sizes, a number of the lot lines go into the wetland buffer, which is allowed by Renton's code. They felt that by modifying the lot sizes and keeping all the private lots out of the buffer really helped protect the stream. The PUD is a much better design than a regular plat. They do agree with most of the design guidelines, but there are some details that make it very difficult to use and there are some conflicts in the guidelines. There needs to be the ability for the staff and designer to work together to achieve the goal of a particular standard. The Examiner suggested that they go into the objections of the design guidelines. He presumed that the guidelines had been agreed to prior to the hearing. The guidelines are 13 pages long and quite detailed and elaborate. The terms of the guidelines need to be settled now, if that is not possible, the hearing can be continued. Ms. Timmons stated that the applicant had been given a copy of the guidelines. Mr. Hanson stated that he could go over a few of their objections such as; houses need to be oriented towards the Native Growth Protection Easement. That is not a problem, but what exactly does that mean, oriented towards, is that the front door? Chelan Avenue would be like an alley, would the doors and garages have to meet the criteria as if they were the front? Access would be from the other side. Ms. Timmons stated that because the plat is a PUD they are trying to get the homes to orient to the natural features on site, which is one of the PUD criteria. The front yards that would be abutting the natural features on site would have the front facades, front porch, front door and the rest (Lots 5-12) would have the garage and access with limited driveways so that there is more open space. The Examiner stated that he would agree that all the homes on Lots 5-12 should orient the same way. He was not sure the formal front of a building today, most fronts have garages there and these most likely would not have a garage on the side of the Native Growth Protection Easement. Ms. Timmons stated that the garage would have a 20 -foot setback as any normal rear yard. The Examiner was concerned that this could not be settled at the hearing. If there is a problem with the guidelines, that needs to be ironed out now so there are no vague questions when the development actually takes place. If it were being developed in the next six months, that would be fine, but in 5 years anything can happen. If the property were to be sold, the purchaser needs to know exactly what they would be bound to. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 5 Mr. Hanson continued with his list of objections to the guidelines: some of the details need to be worked out. For instance, in the guidelines it states that the corner boards need to be painted. Does that mean that we cannot stain them? Why can't they be stained? There is no flexibility built into the guidelines. There are conflicts with the fencing, it appears that there cannot be a fence in the interior side yard. There is a hedge issue with the interior side yards, he did not believe you could put hedges there. The guidelines propose a wider trail and they were thinking narrower with fences on both sides, their proposal seems much less sensitive to the land and buffer. If the City wants it to become a public trail, then the City needs to take responsibility for the care, maintenance and liability of the trail. It now becomes a sidewalk that would connect to Duvall come through the development and connect to Duvall again at the opposite end. They have proposed a softer trail through the buffer area. Driveway widths, one section talks about width and one talks about curb cuts. Sixteen feet does not allow room to get out of the car, eighteen feet works much better, allowing room to get out of the car and unload packages, children, etc. Again the guidelines talk about front doors and front of the building requirements. What are the requirements, wood doors, they cannot be fiberglass or metal. Doors fronting the street could be metal, doors fronting the Native Growth Protection Easement would have to be wood if that is the front yard. Double doors are not allowed, nice French Doors facing the NGPE would not be allowed. The lot line adjustment should not be a problem, that recording should take place any day. Tract C would be modified to 26 -feet, which is not an issue, the surveyor has it at 25 -feet. Tract A is a misprint, it says 20 feet, but in fact it is 26 feet. There is a requirement for a 25 -foot radius on Lot 12. Street standards call for a 15 -foot radius, which does not meet the Fire Department's requirements. He would suggest that that condition be changed rather than requiring a 25 -foot radius on Lot 12, requiring that radius meet the Fire Department's requirements. There also is a requirement to put a five-foot landscape strip along Lots 1-4 on the west side, which they had not proposed. They are proposing a 10 -foot landscaping strip along Duvall, leaving the natural vegetation throughout the buffer and critical area. They were proposing a 10 -foot strip along Lot 13. Mr. Hanson did not believe the strip along Lots 1-4 was a requirement of the code. There is a requirement to put two trees either in the front yard or in the landscape strip. They provided two trees in the landscape strip along Duvall. The City code requires that offsite improvements be put in on property abutting your site, Duvall Avenue is abutting the site and does not have full street improvements adjacent to the site. The City just did some improvements in that area, but they did not put in a street that meets the City standards. They did sewer and water improvements and repaved the street. The applicant is now being required to install curb, gutter and sidewalk, storm drainage and street lighting the whole length of the property. There is 677 feet along Duvall and 63% of that frontage is either wetland or buffer. There are only five lots abutting and none of those lots have access to Duvall. The applicant should not have to put in full street improvements in that area. School children are using Chelan Ave to cross and do not use Duvall. Kayren Kittrick, Department of Community and Economic Development stated that the Orchards development directly to the south of this, was required to put in walkway and to improve Duvall Avenue even though they had no access to Duvall. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 6 Tract A is 26 -feet wide, Mr. Hanson is correct, a design for proper radii for the Fire Department can be accommodated within that 26 feet as well as the larger interior section around the existing home. Lot 12 may require a bit of an edge. Pathways have been done with both soft surfacing and paving, they both seem to work. Lighting is more difficult because it must be maintained and paid for. Who owns it? It appeared that it would be included in the access easement, installed by the applicant and maintained by the homeowner's association. It would be an access easement for the benefit of the public but maintained by the homeowner's association. Ms. Kittrick stated that there would a safety consideration pro and con for the lighting. It invites the public through and also invites people through that may not have innocent intentions. The lighting does create a higher safety factor for both residents and anyone that is walking through there. Mr. Hanson stated that a public path would cause problems for the residents, it is unreasonable to require a walkway. The school children could use the sidewalk along Duvall or a pathway along Duvall without a formal city sidewalk that would meet the City's standards. The pathway as originally designed was not intended to provide a public walkway, but rather just an internal amenity for interior lots. Ms. Timmons stated that the pathway was a trade-off for the PUD. Staff is requiring the path to be connected back to Duvall because Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have to travel completely around the site in order to reach Duvall. The Examiner stated that he would hold the hearing open. He wants a settlement on the 13 pages of guidelines before they are forwarded as something that shall be abided by. The hearing will be held open for one week to allow Mr. Hanson to spell out in writing his questions and then a return response by staff. Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing stopped at 10:52 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Jim Hanson, Hanson Consulting, filed a request for a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and a Preliminary Plat. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. The subject site is located on the west side of Duvall Avenue NE and runs from approximately a half block north of NE 8th Street to approximately a half block south of NE 10th Street. NE 9th Street on the west deadends about halfway along the west property line while SE 118th Street fonns a T -intersection with Duvall in approximately the same location but on the east side of the subject site. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 7 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of single-family uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is currently zoned R-8 (Single Family - 8 dwelling units/acre). The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinances 3058 and 5161, adopted respectively in September 1976 and January 2005. 9. The subject site is approximately 4.21 acres (183,489 gross square feet). 10. The subject site slopes downward from the northeast to the southwest portion with an overall grade difference across the site of approximately 15 feet. 11. The proposal would require approximately 1,000 cubic yards of grading along Duvall. 12. The subject site contains a Class 4 stream and a Category 2 wetland. The wetland is associated with the creek that runs diagonally across the site from the northeast to the southwest. A Category 2 wetland requires a 50 -foot buffer. A Class 4 stream, non -salmonid bearing in this case, requires a minimum 35 - foot buffer. This stream drains down toward the Cedar River. 13. The applicant proposes buffer averaging to permit it to carve out 16 lots around the creek and wetland. Portions of the 50 -foot wetland buffer would be reduced to not less than 25 feet through buffer averaging. The buffer would be reduced by 11,597 square feet to be replaced by 12,426 square feet of enhanced additional buffer. Enhancement would result in the planting of native plants and the removal of invasive species. Staff approved the buffer averaging proposal subject to conditions under a separate cover. 14. The site is vegetated primarily with grass lawns, shrubs and trees. A tree inventory found a total of 191 trees on the site. The applicant would retain 81 percent following development including trees that would be retained in the wetland and creek areas. 15. Two existing residences and outbuildings are located on the subject site. One home is located along the north portion of the subject site while the second home is east of where NE 9th Street intersects the subject site. 16. The area is predominately developed with R-8, single-family uses surrounding the subject site with a church also located west of the subject site. 17. Chelan Place NE intersects the parcel approximately midway along its south property line. NE 9th Street intersects the parcel approximately midway along its western property line. A new north -south road, Proposed Chelan Avenue NE will be extended along the western property line. 18. The applicant proposes dividing the acreage into 16 lots and 2 access tracts. The proposed subdivision would result in 16 lots ranging in lot size from 3,930 to 7,658 square feet. The centrally located critical areas and limited public roads along the margins of the site limit the placement of the proposed lots. Proposed Lots 1 to 4 and 13 will be located along Duvall but take access from interior easements or tracts. Proposed Lots 14, 15, and 16 are located along the north and northwest margins of the subject site. Proposed Lots 5 to 12 are located along the western margin of the site. 19. Proposed Lots 1 through 4 would gain access from a dead end Access Tract (Tract C) extended from Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 8 Chelan Place NE. Proposed Lots 5 through 12 would gain access from a proposed dead end public street extended from NE 9th Street. Proposed Lots 13 through 15 would gain access from a proposed Access Tract (Tract A); extended from the new Chelan Ave NE. Proposed Lot 16 would gain access from an existing access easement extended from NE 10" Street. There is no Tract B as it will be part of Proposed Chelan Avenue NE. 20. Staff has recommended that homes be oriented so that Proposed Lots 1 and 2 face west to Chelan Place NE, Proposed Lots 3 and 4 similarly face west toward the Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE), Proposed 5 to 12 face to the east to face the NGPE, Proposed Lot 13 south to the NGPE, Proposed Lots 14 and 15 face their access tract and Lot 16 face its westerly neighbor. 21. Staff noted that the applicant has requested a total lot area reduction of 1,971 square feet and this reduction must be balanced with a commensurate open space on the site. Staff recommended the applicant alter the plans by removing the tot lot and moving the gazebo to the pedestrian path's start or end. 22. The proposed plat will have a density of 4.70 units per acre after the deduction of roads and critical areas from the gross acreage of the site. There would be 6,458 square feet for right-of-way dedications, 9,902 square feet for private access easements and 18,739 square feet for critical areas. This results in approximately 148,390 square feet (3.406 net acres) 23. The subject site is located within the Renton School District. The project is expected to generate approximately 6 or 7 school age children. These students would be spread across the grades and would be assigned on a space available basis. 24. The development will generate approximately 10 trips per unit or approximately 140 trips for the 14 additional single-family homes, or 160 trips for all 16 homes. Approximately ten percent of the trips, or approximately 16 peak hour trips will be generated in the morning and evening. 25. The subject site is located in the Maplewood Creek sub -basin. This area has known storm water and erosion issues downstream. Stormwater will be collected in two vaults located in Chelan Place and NE 9th respectively. Water will be released to the creek at controlled rates and flow off the site. The ERC imposed compliance with the 2005 King County Stormwater Manual. 26. Sewer and water will be provided by the City. Staff has recommended extensions of the water lines to the south boundary of Lot 16 and along the frontage of Lot 3. 27. A lot line adjustment in the vicinity of Proposed Lot 16 is required for access to the subject site and provide the appropriate property line demarcation between property included or excluded from the current proposal. 28. Staff had recommended shared driveways between Proposed Lots 5 and 6 but removed the condition. Staff has recommended 10 foot and 18 foot driveway widths for single drives and double drives respectively. 29. Staff recommended a revised landscape plan to include 5 feet of landscaping along Duvall for Proposed Lots 1 and 2, 10 feet of ornamental landscaping along Duvall for Proposed Lots 1 to 4 and 13 and for ornamental landscaping to mirror the designs south of the subject site. 30. Staff recommended a 15 -foot radius on the northeast corner of Proposed Lot 12. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 9 31. Staff recommended that a pedestrian pathway be extended from Chelan Place NE to the east along the Native Growth Protection easement and then around Proposed Lots 3 and 4 and ultimately connect to Duvall and that it be a public benefit as part of the required public benefit for PUD approval. 32. Staff enunciated the code requirements that the applicant is responsible for improvements along Duvall Avenue NE adjacent to the subject site. 33. The applicant requested that the normal two (2) year expiration period for a PUD be extended an additional three (3) years to a total of five (5) years. Normally, as the expiration date approaches a one- year extension may be requested. The 5 years would match the plat approval period. 34. At the public hearing the applicant raised non-specific objections to portions of the Chelan Creek Design Guidelines, which were a thirteen (13) page addendum to the staff recommendation. Staff analysis indicated that certain requirements of a PUD could only be satisfied if the Guidelines were accomplished. The vague nature of the objections led to keeping the hearing record open so that specific objections could be raised and reviewed by staff. Staff and the applicant agreed on Revised Guidelines that resulted from the applicant's submissions and staffs further review. 35. The applicant maintains objections to the requirement for street improvements along Duvall Avenue NE and extending the path to Duvall in the vicinity of Proposed Lots 3 and 4. The applicant suggests that the lots along Duvall do not take access to that street and the requirement for improvements is not proportionate to the plat's impact. The applicant believes that the second access to Duvall supplants the need for staffs recommended connection. CONCLUSIONS: Planned Urban Development (PUD) The PUD Ordinance contains a long and complex series of criteria that are reviewed. They are included in Section 4-9-150-D: D DECISION CRITERIA: The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same degree as without a planned urban development; or b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or c. Public Facilities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for development of the subject property without a planned urban development; or d. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior in one or more of the following ways to the design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban development: i. Open Space/Recreation: (a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation fees in Resolution 3082; and (b) Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities and Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 10 attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas and public walkways; or ii. Circulation/Screening: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or screening of parking facilities; or iii. Landscaping/Screening: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or around the proposed planned urban development; or iv. Site and Building Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement, relationship or orientation of structures, or use of solar energy; or V. Alleys: Provides alleys to at least fifty percent (50%) of any proposed single family detached, semi -attached, or townhouse units. 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for consistency with all of the following criteria: a. Building and Site Design: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building orientation or housing type; e.g., single family, detached, attached, townhouses, etc. b. Circulation: i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas. ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets, avoidance of difficult turning patterns, and minimization of steep gradients. iii. Provision of a system of walkways that tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. C. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements, existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required. e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed-use development shall provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property, the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties, and for screening of storage, mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to each dwelling unit. f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking advantage of topography, building location and style. g. Parking Area Design: i. Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate. ii. Adequacy: Provides sufficient on-site vehicular parking areas consistent with the parking demand created by the development as documented in a parking analysis approved by the City. Parking management plans shall ensure sufficient resident, employee, or visitor parking standards, and there shall be no reliance on adjacent or abutting properties unless a shared parking arrangement consistent with RMC 4- 4-080 is approved. h. Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking spaces, open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with previous phases, can stand alone. 4. Compliance with Development Standards: Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the development standards contained in subsection E of this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and maybe designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed-use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below. a. Residential: For residential developments, open space must be equal to or greater in size than the total square footage of the lot area reductions requested by the planned urban development, as illustrated in Figure 1. The open space shall not include a critical area and shall be concentrated in large usable areas. Stormwater Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 11 facilities may be incorporated with the open space on a case-by-case basis if the Reviewing Official finds: i. The stormwater facility utilizes the techniques and landscape requirements set forth in The Integrated Pond, King County Water and Land Resources Division, or an equivalent manual, or ii. The surface water feature serves areas outside of the planned urban development and is appropriate in size and creates a benefit. Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 4,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Site Area: 1.5 acres Typical Lot Size: 3,500 sq. ft. Total Number of Lots: 12 Open Space: 4,500 s.f. minus 3,500 s.f. = 1,000 s.f. x 12 lots = 12,000 sq. ft. Standard Subdivision Example Planned Urban Development Approach Figure 1. Common Open Space Example b. Mixed Use — Residential Portions: Subsections Elbi to v of this Section specify common open space standards for the residential portions of mixed-use developments. i. Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Reviewing Official. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Reviewing Official may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multipurpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. ii. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. iii. Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development. iv. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Figure 2. A visible and accessible residential common area containing landscaping and other amenities. V. Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. C. Mixed Use Nonresidential Portions, or Commercial, or Industrial Uses: The following subsections specify common open space requirements applicable to nonresidential portions of mixed use developments or to single use commercial or industrial developments: i. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space according to the following formula: 1 % of the lot area + I% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Figure 3. Examples of pedestrian -oriented space associated with a large-scale retail building. ii. To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a courtyard not subject to vehicular traffic, (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving, (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground, and (d) At least three (3) feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space. iii. The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space and may be required by the Reviewing Official. (a) Pedestrian -oriented uses at the building facade facing the pedestrian -oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space consistent with Figure 4. Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 12 (d) Public seating that is durable or easily replaceable, maintainable, and accessible. Figure 4. Pedestrian -oriented spaces, visible from the street, including ample seating areas, movable furniture, special paving, landscaping components, and adjacent pedestrian -oriented uses. iv. The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots, (b) Adjacent chain link fences, (c) Adjacent blank walls, (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas, and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. d. Open Space Orientation: The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building orientation, sun and light exposure, and local micro -climatic conditions. C. Common Open Space Guidelines: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. i. Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. ii. In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. 2. Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors) for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private open space, which is contiguous to the unit and shall be an area of at least twenty percent (20%) of the gross square footage of the dwelling units. The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least ten feet (10') in every dimension. Decks on upper floors can substitute for some of the required private open space for upper floor units. For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than five feet (5'). 3. Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space: a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan submitted by the applicant and approved by the City; provided, that common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation may be left unimproved. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of two (2) years thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two (2) year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Development Services Division. b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. 4. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060, except for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a planned urban development. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and deferral, the City shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each phase of a planned urban development. b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property. (Ord. 5153, 9- 26-2005) 2. It appears that some background on a PUD (Planned Urban Development) is necessary. The fact is that a PUD is kind of a compact or contract between the property's owner or developer and the City. The City modifies or relaxes its normal standards such as lot size or setbacks or street dimensions and the developer agrees to provide enhanced development and, it must be emphasized "AND" public benefit. To cut to the chase, in this case the applicant sought relaxed standards permitting more lots on the acreage than would normally be accommodated given the shape of the parcel, surrounding streets and the large centrally located wetland and creek. In return, the City sought enhanced design of the homes and a public pathway adjacent to the natural features and through the development as part of the public's benefit or return for relaxing the normal development standards. If the developer does not find the pathway Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 13 acceptable, then the balancing that drives this PUD has not been achieved. The City's Critical Areas ordinances and complementary regulations already protect the natural features on this site. The features themselves, the wetlands and creek are already protected and buffers around those features are already required and protected. Those regulations protecting the critical areas and buffers mandate an overall reduction in density and impose significant constraints on the lot sizes and shapes. Access and street requirements further define how the plat can be developed and how many lots can be legally served. Both critical areas and roadways together reduce the developable acreage and, therefore, the overall density that can result. Accommodating more density can be achieved by allowing smaller lots, yards, driveways and roads or easements. So, from the City's perspective, the PUD needs to provide additional public benefits that achieve more than preserving the wetlands and creels and their respective buffers. This could include improving the public roadways around the project including Duvall and providing the path recommended by staff. 4. The applicant's objections to installing street improvements along Duvall are misguided. Code requires it. The public benefit in approving this PUD requires it. The residents of this plat require it. The fact that primary access to Duvall from lots within this plat is limited does not mean that the proposed lots or rather their commuting, shopping and socially active residents will not be using this major thoroughfare for access to and egress from the plat. A review of the street system shows a rather limited grid pattern and one that has limited direct access to major arterials and the shopping and commute routes that residents find attractive. While some residents will probably prefer winding about smaller roads, many will find Duvall, the more direct route, more appealing. Duvall to the south provides access to NE 4th Street and a commercial node at Duvall. NE 4th also provides access to downtown Renton and I-405. Duvall to the north provides access to the Sunset commercial corridor, again I-405, and access to Bellevue as Duvall transitions into Coal Creek Parkway and access to I-90. Transit routes along Duvall might also prove inviting and residents could be expected to make use of sidewalks along Duvall immediately abutting the plat along the east. Determining whether a traditional plat or a PUD provides a better result clearly is something in the eye of the beholder and could vary considerably. The PUD clearly allows more lots to be developed on this highly constrained property and that helps create more housing opportunities for more people. A traditional plat would have allowed quicker development and more free choice of housing type and expression of individuality in landscaping and style. This office has to suggest that a number of criteria in this review might be considered vague and allow the imposition of vague conditions that could later be misinterpreted. In order for staff to recommend approval of this PUD they required the imposition of 13 pages of guidelines governing everything from housing form, window trim, contrasting color, facade details and orientation, articulation and banding, corner treatments, stoop arrangements and more. In the present case, the applicant did have some concerns with some of the conditions imposed in that approximately 13 -page addendum. Satisfying the PUD criteria in most aspects depends on the applicant abiding by the guidelines. The guidelines govern most aspects of the proposed development. A large number of the criteria are or will be satisfied as the applicant develops the project in accordance with the proposed guidelines. 6. The proposal is compatible with the R-8 Zoning and the Single -Family designation found in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal results in a density of 4.7 which falls within the range permitted in the R-8 Zone. The proposal to construct detached single-family homes is appropriate given the comprehensive plan's single-family designation. 7. The next main criterion and the one providing the biggest stumbling block between the applicant and staff Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 14 is the creation of "specifically identified public benefit." A number of concepts are noted that might achieve a public benefit: protect critical areas beyond normal, preserve or enhance natural features beyond normal, provide a public facility or provide a special design. Frankly, the critical areas regulations probably provided more than adequate protection of the wetlands and creek and their respective buffers. There will be some critical area enhancement as a result of buffer averaging but this is permitted without a PUD overlay. And one could argue that buffer averaging lessens protections in one area to enhance other areas. Reducing a buffer allows more intense uses closer to the actual critical area. So this buffer reduction/enhancement tradeoff is not necessarily a benefit of PUD development. Providing public facilities that would not ordinarily result from developing private property was the manner staff found to satisfy this requirement. Staff requested that a pathway open to the public be created that winds between Duvall Avenue on the east, around and through the wetland/creek area and the lots and out to the west. This would open the wetland areas to public viewing and enjoyment while providing residents an outlet to the Duvall public right-of-way. Staff notes that the landscaping for the proposal when installed according to the guidelines will provide a superior look and the streetscape is intended to mirror or continue landscaping schemes already found in adjacent development. The adjacent Orchards development has modulated fencing and a meandering sidewalk which staff recommends be continued along the applicant's portion of Duvall. Similarly, housing massing, layout and types will be dictated by the guidelines and provide a townhome-like coordination of architectural detailing between the separate homes while the homes remain detached single-family units. The applicant does not propose any special open space requirements but will meet code requirements for individual units. 9. Staff noted that the sample drawings of elevation and styles were too conceptual and suggested that the guidelines would appropriately govern those issues. Conditions requiring compliance with the guidelines will be imposed as part of the approval process. 10. The roadway pattern will rely on a combination of public streets along the perimeter of the site and private easements and driveways internal to the site. This combination is dictated by the centrally located stream and wetland areas, which preclude internal grid streets. The applicant will have to provide adequate room for corner clearances, known as corner radii, where some of the easements form ninety - degree turns. Staff has recommended that Duvall improvements be installed as required by Code. Those improvements would have to be guided by the critical areas located along the Duvall frontage. While the applicant indicated that there was no legal nexus (compelling reasons) for the applicant to be responsible for improving the frontage since no lots would be accessing Duvall, code requires improvements along frontage of developing properties. As noted above the residents of this complex as well as their friends and visitors would be likely to use Duvall both to the north and south for commuting purposes as well as convenient access to commercial services at nodes north and south of the subject site. Similarly, sidewalks internal to the project as well as along Duvall will allow residents to stretch their muscles and mingle with neighboring property owners. The pathway proposed by staff will allow access to and enjoyment of the natural features by both residents and the public. An exemption will allow improvements along Duvall within the right-of-way as well as an exemption to allow the pedestrian path. Both have been administratively granted to allow appropriately conditioned development. Staff has recommended the use of a meandering sidewalk close to the right-of-way. Lighting will be required. Staff has recommended that private open space for lots be defined and where near the trail and critical areas, a split rail fence be used to complement the one protecting the critical areas. 11. The site has access to appropriate utilities and they can be extended to serve the new lots within the plat. 12. Staff has recommended reduced driveway widths to match the smaller lots and reduced pavement and has Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 15 specified the orientation of homes to take advantage of the natural features or orient in a normal fashion toward their street or neighboring homes. 13. This office sees no reason to eliminate the tot lot proposed by the applicant and it should be maintained as part of the open space. It and the gazebo may be relocated to areas away from traffic if that is possible. Staff noted that the lots appear to have adequate space to accommodate the required open space for each lot but suggested it be clearly depicted on final plans. 14. The proposal is not exceptionally large and while encumbered by a wetland and creek it is not an exceptionally complex project. The current economic situation might justify granting a longer timeframe in which to develop the subject site but the five years requested appear to be inordinate. A one-year extension is almost always available so granting an additional year on the permit actually provides a four- year (4) timeframe. Conditions and regulations undergo periodic review and the property should not be vested in years' old regulations if conditions do change. The only reason to grant a five-year permit is to match the plat period. Maybe the City Council should limit this plat overlaid by a PUD to 4 years total. Again, the proposal is not all that complex and should be able to be implemented in less than five (5) years. Preliminary Plat 15. The proposed plat appears to serve the public use and interest. It preserves the critical areas located on the central portion of the site while providing additional lots for detached single-family uses. 16. While the lots do not necessarily comply with the actual platting regulations, the imposition of the PUD overlay allows for the proposed division of the property. 17. The lots and lot lines are about as rectangular as can be, given the need for the lots to be arranged around the critical areas. 18. Public services can be extended to serve the new lots. Stormwater will be accommodated by the applicant in two systems and then recharge the wetlands and creek. 19. The payment of mitigation fees will help offset the impacts that the development will have on public services. The development should increase the tax base of the City helping to offset some of the additional impacts on new residents on the City. 20. The plat will provide additional housing choices including housing situated around natural areas. 21. In conclusion, the City Council should approve the proposed PUD and Plat. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should approve the proposed PUD and Plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the attached Chelan Creek Design Guidelines for all residences constructed on the proposed lots. The applicant will be required to, as part of the FPUD application, provide elevations and floor plans for the proposed structures. 2. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping and street improvement plan depicting the following: a meandering sidewalk; ornamental landscaping and modulated fencing, for those portions of the frontage not abutting the proposed NGPE, to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Modulation Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 17 Guidelines that are applicable to the maintaining the design of the PUD shall be incorporated into the homeowners' association bylaws. 15. The applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and complete all required inspections for all buildings located on the property prior to the recording of the final plat. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised detailed landscape plan prepared by a certified landscape architect or other landscape professional to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction pennit, Final Plat, or Final PUD approval; whichever comes first. The revised landscape plan should include: a 5 -foot landscape strip along the frontage of Lots 1 and 2; and ornamental 10 -foot landscape strip along Duvall Ave NE street frontage for Lots 1 through 4 and Lot 13; and ornamental landscaping to minor the existing frontage improvements along Duvall Ave NE, just south of the site. The revised landscape plan should also include fence detail for the entire site. 18. The applicant shall record access easements for each tract prior to utility construction, Final Plat, or Final PUD approval, whichever comes first; the existing access easement shall be revised to restrict access to Lot 16 only; and the residence located on Lot 16 shall include a fire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of the City of Renton Fire Department. 19. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised plat plan depicting a 15 -foot radius on the northeast corner of Lot 12. The revised plan would be required to be submitted prior to construction permit, Final Plat, Final PUD approval; whichever comes first. 20. The applicant shall be required to extend the existing 8 -inch water main within the access easement (extended from NE 10th St) to the south boundary of Lot 16 prior to Final Plat approval. Water main extensions shall also be installed for the full frontage of Lot 3. ORDERED THIS 5th day of February 2009. TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of February 2009 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Wes Falkenborg Windermere Land Group 1215 120th Ave NE, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98005 Amy Dickau & Doug Smith 874 Bremerton Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Jim Hanson Hanson Consulting 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 Jerry Pryor 825 Chelan Place NE Renton, WA 98059 TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of February 2009 to the following: Linda Pillo 5411 36th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Shirley Goll 4124 NE 10th Street Renton, WA 98059 FRED J. KAAN HEARING E INER TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of February 2009 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Wes Falkenborg Windermere Land Group 1215 120th Ave NE, Ste. 110 Bellevue, WA 98005 Amy Dickau & Doug Smith 874 Bremerton Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 Kayren Kittrick Development Services Renton, WA 98057 Jim Hanson Hanson Consulting 17446 Mallard Cove Lane Mt. Vernon, WA 98274 Jerry Pryor 825 Chelan Place NE Renton, WA 98059 TRANSMITTED THIS 5th day of February 2009 to the following: Linda Pillo 5411 36th Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98126 Shirley Goll 4124 NE 10th Street Renton, WA 98059 Chelan Creek PUD File No.: LUA-08-067, PP, PPUD, ECF, CAE, CAE February 5, 2009 Page 18 Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 19, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 19, 2009. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. D6 — 03 T23N R5F,W 1/2 ZONING f � t PW TECIINIC SERVICES 07/15/08 F6 — 15 T23N' 0(� —2-00400 CSO Feet 1:4,800. EXHIBIT 3 E6 10 T23N RR5E W 1/2 5310 sI S f� N 1!0' SZ f/4, KR I/4 g VOL/PG OXdTIX EF' iaeE 6 Id' E LY' U!f -®^ _ S S UE K ZW _ _ _ _ ..� W IT= B 6W •J€� (A: w To '17331 etrN CA CU TED K 8, ar0' [ 0` I.. - ks CIEOAAIFD PD3rIQY Pwrs oZ �a< � �af�_ R8 rn !::=`,:_ '.�I rlre9n,srs �• � I� I ti I TAC �A4Il a14kR tF' FEALF 6 ry 1r,�7 ei3 'x.-j S_Sm OJ•f,A ISK(i i R E125' Nh& N �:/tJ UL�L`i/_ti]UV �:J�+� �13 CIPM PAW{Rfr EObax LOT 14 8 - go I I' ® (NOJ' R S2. Fr' is fA%¢� Ka I LOCATED IN THE S.E. 1/4, OF THE N.W. 1/4, ti 73f i LIGE K J0Y'r k E S 191E I,O EALfS '--'--' 1 ,• I' _r• ,Ep - '= K Jfr OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, --:r - �,r sw rm " Ta RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., 1� 1 rsr ErmarNez s s69z9aFe7m I:; r EK 4r s ar K a, BB a PFME KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON R �$ r+a� 1`57 lM - I-P FA{ET aO' S OF 1. ff...lJld - PAa477fY ll� ('.'�: _ 7 Lor is rr � ti 0 LOT 5 p tiID� 0 r4z R nr Tut TW - W TSI Teo I [AT rs-'-HO �c I I• - 5916 ATO ' Q T4FT OS 1'd 430 37aIF ii'' _ i�i�,0 I GRAPHIC SCALE 1'=40' NOi PAPP 'T47W 1`49 1 N`' PHUT s7•,��, ARea•?��. �� �•�' 2 rorLC. �" w LE-430.7 . .. ' $0. Fr. 167 < 3 rucsE T. .�a Y - - 40 0 40 - -" FACE 6 - A lv wwtr rs6 r xa I ] BASIS OF BEARINGS: NAD 83 (1991) ' I 26r /{r E OF A-r�75Dr1 !£-127. / :113 - f PRCPERIY U,f . , Ri I. .'g �i BFNONGS SHOWN HERE N ARE BASED ON CITY OF MMDN TBM I 2r ENES In/ I MONUMENTS (fM AND /1649 BSMG NORM 8820'00' WEST, E1.-418. y I �- FF-.lJ200 �� .ry (� T72 175 ti • FI AS ,MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 'TRACT A . OF SECTION to, TOWNSHIP IJ NORM. RANGE 5 FAST, W.M. if.7.ON 3O. FT I fit' k I 1 . it liAr6T TAX PARCEL NU$440 S): Gr✓� ' jai 102]05-9I06k IO2J05-4440 I .r IAMW23Y m1A4' y I �h; 35df'I as.ET• X5710'. j R 1`65 196 TO BE r--1 �CAmm A�25 ' 00' �� ab � I 14a9 wTOIAL A�(4,21 ACRES) PLATTED: I i-r - -- ws3szrxieil ----- r7D �7 r yW NOTES: I\n! 769 y�TT4 1D1 �� I g Ci 1. MONUMENTS LASTVISITED 6-t I-07. g Aa qy P -. I t L0 (T - * T73 1`76 xy 53 p �`.1 e .� h, �y �. 2. ME BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY REPRESENT TAY PAffi I W. FT' I'h , •8i _ t �ERW/ SLY, ACTUAL .OWNERSHIP MAY OTHERWISE BE �2 W 116 T77 TB4 785 1\ 118 �' 4 y TW / T� .� OS �r ai VERTICAL DATUM: LOT ri rWz-'I/ ""'• ASA/L/R7 1`90 ,6. 1`2 `a NORTH AVEWCAN WRTICAL DATUM OF 1966 III WIDE ROADWAY I Q�1 8\ g 1`99 Wl +9, I o REC. 13a e2aau" tai +ac j T72 JS�A v N - a c W BENCHMARK: O , 2921E "ZA4 n00 i4'J (.� w 1e p •'�- I � OF OF PENTON AND UNION AVE 46 AT ME 0R'ERSECROH R q nz OF 41 BM St - AND UNION AVE N.E. =.• � 1 Lor TD �W� tz=Anse g $ LOT B n w - rre c�p�4eo SITE BENCHMARKS: 1 d �1 C 191 vP - 1 =O 4B T-ELW. "A': TOP CENTER BOLT OF FIRE HMRANr ELV.-I34-73 W I ti � W " TB.U. 'B'. UPPER N. FLANGE BOLT OF FIRE MYIMAIfT ELV,-43767 M, Pl3B 975x 175'9' �,. T135 T.B.M. 'C: 60D NAIL SET M E FACE OF UTILITY POLE ELV-=42&09 weRrAL Avlacr i L4615 OT 9 "W nJ1 16 1 1 q' `If' L CONTOUR INTERVAL: cube 111E _ I rrar 6q- Fl. Ip NF. 9T�„17� ST. I, ir03 Tras S�/B I 0.GCUA 2-0o us. FEFr I. f4 I nws; Itf f nJ4 TIJJ (C000Hr URS BASED ON ACRAL FIELD SURVEY-) TFxrtaL cDRe J, San LOT ut = I ne _ 1102 � LOT a 1104 I( �`µ �'� ) �, PARCEL AREA: (PER'PROPosED uwj L110.31 FDKE r 1 1 R Y 97 8 ® ^ W TI6 I� 7AJ( PARCEL (102305-11440 AND PROPERTY UNE I . • g �' 1`707 @ il5 1 TAX PARCEL f 102705-9106 x F AREA= 7E3,469 S0. FT. TAX PAS. ETI( ' L9Q^I ' o .`�$ x /95!091-0110 - an ]i: rr------- CRITICAL AREA: LTH IN OF Fr. �.,, IB6223x , m796' 'II FF' CRITICAL AREA WITH rN BUFFER (TOTAL) . FT. S0. FT. MITIGa ,,� CRITICAL AREA BUFFER TAKE: 1. 620 0. FT. (fBAJ A;F,Yz 6 Bf A T!J CRITICAL'ARFA BUFFER CAE: 11,669 SO- F7. . - , ' `•., - - TAKE axpr Affil 61` rr3 I I ' A Ci 412 °j IZ ' ' , _ LOOT. 7C J �/ A BD REFERENCE SURVEYS: 59. FT / 114 / 7�0 ] EL=134-T (Rt) KING COUNTY 8AA f L03LDD57, REC. (20040406900020 (rBRJ , - `�> ^ $0. FT- 1`119 �' I - RECORDED M VOL-. 169', .PAGE 273 rAr PARR • 6, r136TF 115 (R2j KING c,,,, PUT OF WOODCREEK /diM4-0707 1 LOT a �n26/ ] �• I $ (R3E j DI ESD C=W 1 7199122, OPACE AT HIDDEN CREEK 1`177 ak, C 726I tt0 ^ W I RECORDED IN WL. 168, PAGE 63 n<11 a .4 (R4) KINC COIMTY BAA ( L02LDO35, REC. )20020912900003 LOT 5 T., ll��� �m k �a21E 5607• & RECORDED IN VOL. 155, PAGE 46 r .4 r $ IT 4' 9' & E7® DF fTAt'f / ��i _i% CURVE TABLE 4 0.1' E EF ' i / nJG PROPERTY 1/!E ice. W. F7. ' � 9 n16 ;4LD1` 4 Fii, `� CL f6J� ,W' A7391Y5• /mA7Z' pAgaTIN ( 1`7 7TYI T141 �IC94 � / / I 16� 0, 1 V' t FT. nzo 40 420 f ISA n2r �` 17 .� ( �4 �, / - ypi Tr36 3. , �327F .lice• pf, 4fB �8�. 1 J �I�_r_ / ,),171`140 4��TAKEA+ tt�OT3T147 .� I EXHIBIT 4 416 ,,F1F''�1, 416 / M Bi - (L FT. - 4t4 ^� 1 Tfi3 ,,fit .B'p .�n44i50. Ff.ACjp� � 1 i . r n!1 .._cc5is_®v 589W21F 1z33'T116=RiS1Y4 FIATp�, 9T�M1' w *ti>, .824• w :. KIJ ( !I f7E-41L 0 �1Is �a LOT �T VUL 18L P0- 1`150 1 r p,�,r�0' A,,� 1� g 50. FT. . yy . 21 /�95"�j9 - £ Xj w S1H 712EF BN. i '� y & INSTRUMENT USED-.0 0DIMEEER 600 AND/OR TRIMBLE 5603DR20D+ IE`ilT { "y WETLANDAs?221E Q .14 TC METHOD:TRAVERSE EXCEEDING REQUIREMENTS OF WAC. 731-IJO-090, SP 30' GAVE 1. �i'PS.; n^ 17 a Q ^v, .INDEXING DATA:S-E 1/4, N.W. 1/4. SEC- 10, 7.23 NORTH, R.5 EAST, W.M. Jy WYE IKVEx I END � g" , v f g TT�Grainer Northwest Inc: FA561r71f PFR ' , END or Lee 2731 �- FT ~ , 1`t ,.Bt• Or AEC. /19v607 J1Jv 77$. 15rRAcr C- FT. I SuneYors Planners k Engineers __47_l 945 N. CENTRAL ST E X104, KENT, 98032 Dari X arr9tTa ' " P ~ 2 / f rte. �� 19 (253)852-4880 (Tocol) or 1 (800)251-0189 (Io8 free) 1 - jj Cc= FOST0.YI r'� r f g r `� , rr : -m _,(253)852_-4955 (fo_x). _ E-MAIL.._cnl®cromernw.com FPB or FFN(f " 1 L.w9MiD a�'ss• s 4 � z . i fnAE Bas ars SCALE: L'=40' 108 NO. 2007 1 aF r. OF G1l.G[4A1ED ftNIRW r $ `x ElF fiiOYRTr [9E DRAWN BY:RA-H. R5E BY 0.1'S ' q'Vm ¢r I ME ITxN O=RMEIS ar W- 4G 1`1318 OFPinxFRYL4F ' ESTA70ATf YcAmK rAr : v � Twxv 4 maET e - ; DATE 10/z9/Tool SHEET 3 OF 3 P.RCIEL7 NOME PUG-0XINUARr ME ADAhWf /r//dtEAHD Tw Jun r2 09�3&I 2007//PPB! PID7- wd Ocl 29. Oi-:0:30 ]008 //PDM3I, WmE OLE 29, 20M 9:56:II c\T USi01r�Prvjecb\ 12007-OO6Pyra r— — I I I I I I I I I ill o a 01#ff fill ull.Ir. Illi t �I �!!,1l,'�u If€!+ �! ; � ' f`• � `�� If rld � ; ?' P ---------i _ 1x11 ! I I � I- --- 1 ---1 !' ! I Lor 9 Lor 81 k 3 Q xiiii<J a Fo- �zs zz r— — I I I I I I I I I ill o a 01#ff fill ull.Ir. Illi t �I �!!,1l,'�u If€!+ �! ; � ' f`• � `�� If rld � ; ?' P ---------i _ 1x11 ! I I � I- --- 1 ---1 !' ! I EXHIBIT 5 EE_T Lor 9 Lor 81 EXHIBIT 5 EE_T CHELAN CREEICDESIGN STANDARDS 1. Site Design, Site Design IJ -a— and standards are intended to minimize modifications to topography, preserve existing vegetation whenever passible, mininuze the creation of impervious surfaces, and make appropriate provisions for vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the Chelan Creek PUD Development. A. Residential Connections and Circulation. 1. Design Objective. Create a road system that is pedestrian -friendly, contains traffic calming techniques, and minimizes the presence of the automobile. a. Standards. (1) Signage. All public roads shall have postings that clearly identify where on -street parking is prohibited. The developer shall be responsible to install "no parking" signs and the homeowner's association shall have the responsibility to maintain and replace the "no parking" signs. B. Sidewalks, Pathways, and Pedestrian Entry Easements. '. Design Objective. Create a network of sidewalks and other paths throughout the neighborhood to reduce the eliance on the, autnnsobile and provide opportunities for interaction and activity. a. Standards. (1) Pedestrian Connections. A sidewalk or pathway system shall be provided throughput the development. 1'he sidewalk or pathway system may disconnect from the road, provided the sidewalldpathway continues in a logical route tlnoughout the residential development. (2) Pathway. - (a) A pathway shall be constructed of a porous materials such as porous paving stones, crushed gravel with soil stabilizers, and paving blocks with planted joints, and shall be a minimum of 5 feet wide. (b) In areas where pathways cross .streets, parking will be eliminated to reduce crosshrg distance and ensure safe crossing (3) Pedestrian Entry Easement (a) A pedestrian entry easement shall be provided to all homes that do not front on the Native Growth Protection Easement (i.e, Lot 16). See Figure 1. (b) Pedcsnian entry easements shall be a minirnam of 5 feet wide with a in u mmin 5 -foot sidewalk. FIGURE 1—Pedestrian Easement (4) Transit Standards. Transit and school has stops shall be identified and coordinated with the local transit agency and/or school distnen C. Garage. 1. Design Objective. Minfutize the visual impacts of the garage through the use of recessed garage doors (front I loaded), and the emphasis of the parch and front door. a. Standards. 1,1) On Site Garage. (a) On-site garages shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from the building facade on which the garage is located. (2) Garage Design. (a) All garages shall follow an architecturalstyle similar to the homes. (b) If sides are visible from streets, lanes, sidewalks, pathways, trails, or other homes, architectural details shall be incorporated in the design to minimize the impacts of the fapade.. (c) All garages shall be located in an arca to minimize the presence of the automobile. (3) Carports. Carports are prohibited. b. Guidelines. (1) Avoid garages doors at the end ofview corridors. (2) .All garages should be located in - area to minimize the presence of The automobile. (3) Lots that take access directly from e neighborhood street shall require a layout that lessens the visual impact of the garage doors. (4) Garages shall not be the dominant visual element in any development. D. Parking Requirements. 1. Design Objective. Provide adequate parking for each unit. a. Standards. (1) Driveways. (a)'the width of the driveway curb cut shall not exceed 10 feet for single lane and 18 feet for double lane. E. Utility Placement - 1, Design Objective. Mhilmize the impact of utility locations. a. Standards. (1) Utility boxes shall be placed away from public gathering spaces and shall be screened with landscaping or berms. b. Guidelines. (I) If possible, gaup uffiity boxes together. (2) Allow space forlandscape and utility access. 11. Architectural Features. The architectural feature standards are intended to allow for a diveuse range of architectural styles, massing, detailing and color while creating a unified development. A. F,levatlons and Models Required. 1. Design Objective. To provide a diverse streetscape and a variety of floor plans, home size, mrd character. See Figure 2 a. Standards. - - (1) Models are defined as having significant variations in the floor plans, which allows ,for variety in the massing of the home, - (2) No more than two of the same model and elevation shall be built on the same block frontage. (3) The same model and elevation shall not be built next to each other. (4) To differentiate the same models and elevations, different colors shall be used. (5) Each model shall have at least two architectural styles and a variety of color schemes. b. Guidelines. (1) Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home size and character. FIGURE 2 —Variety of Models and Elevations B. Massing and Composition. I. Design Objective. To refleet a clear hierarchy of forms and massing with expression of dominant and secondary farms. a. Standards. (1) Primary building forzns shall be the dominating form while secondary formal elements shall include porchac. principal dormers, or other significant features. See Figure 3. FIGURE 3 — Massing Examples n�wm siva, ea�on h,diarsr�, F' ?y C. Building Articulation, 1. Design Objective, To avoid monotonous repetition of elevations along public areas and provide pedestrian scale elements to the streetscape. See Figure 4. a. Standards. (1) The primary building elevation oriented toward the street, access easement or NGPE shall have at least one articulation or change in plane. (2) Primary articulations shall be a minimum of 24 inches. (3) A minimum of at least one side articulation shall occur for side or rear elevations facing streets or public spacer. (4) Building elevations facing public spaces shall have a minimum articulation of 12 inches. L Guidefines. (1) Articulation may be the connection of an open porch to the building, a dormer facing the street, or a well- defined entry, element. FIGURE 4— Building Articulation Examples a D. Building Placement. 1. Design Objective. Orient homes toward the public realm. Buildings shall be designed w integrate with activities along the street frontageandthe NGPE. See Figure 5, FIGURE 5 — Homes Oriented Toward the Public Realm a. Standards. (1) Each home shall have a covered porch or main entry oriented toward the public realm in the respective front yard (Lc-, Lots 1 and 2 towards Chelan PI NE; Lots 3 and 4 towards the NGPE (wesx), Lots 5 through 12 towards theNGPE (east); Lot 13 towards the NGPE (south); Lots 14 and 15 towards Tract A (south); and Lot 16 towards the abutting property to the west.) (2) Windows on a closed side of a unit shall not directly face a neighbor's window. b. Guidelines, (1) Architectural Elements. Homes should be sited in a logical way to maximize usable space while providing natural and architectural elements at key locations. (2) Open and Closed Building Sides. Side yards are important in the creation of private open space, particularly in homes on small lots. Care shall be taken to design homes with an open side and a closed side as appropriate. Window placement is an essential component to achieving this relationship. The open side is the side that is either facing a public street, access easement, or the NGPE. This elevation should have more windows and detailing. See Figures 6 and 7. FIGURE 6 - Open and Closed Sides FIGURE 7 -Closed and Primary Window Locations .. Materials. 1. Design Objective. Require a variety of materials appropriate to the architectural character of the home. a. Standards. Where inure than one material is used, the following techniques shall be used: (1) Vertical Changes. Changes in materials in a vertical wall, such as from brick to wood, shall wrap the comers no less than 24 inches. The material change shall occur at an internal corner or a logical transition such as aligning with a window edge or uhinmey. Material transition shall not occur at an exterior comer. See Figure 8. (2) Horizontal Chang— f ansition in material on a wall surface, such as shingle to lap siding, will be required to have a material separation, such as a trim band board. Sce Figure 9. (3) Acceptable Exterior Wall Material. Wood, cement fiberboard, stucco, standard -sized brick (3-1/2 x 7-1/2 inches or 3-S/8 x 7-5/8 inches), and stone may be used. Simulated stone, wood, stone, or brick may be used to detail homes. (4) Trim. Trim may be wood, cement fiberboard, stucco, or stone materials. Trim is required around all doors and windows. The tour must be 3-1/2 inches minimum and be used on all elevations. FIGURE 8 / FIGLRF 9-- Vertical /Ii rizontal Material Changes ce,a,a�tn�o. umd _ Yro�i M.+uii9 � Ar if i 1 r F. Colors. L Design Objective. Reduce the monotony of color and tone to create a more diverse palette. a. Standards. (1) Provide nnitiphe colors on buildings to reflect material changes and individuality of the residence. (a) Muted deeper tones, as opposed to vibrant primary colors, shall be the dominant colors. (b) Although grey and beige are not excluded, the use of these colors shallnot be the dominant color used on homes or other structures within the development. (c) Color palettes for all new structures, coded to the home elevations; shall be submitted for approval by the Current Planning Project Manager along with the Final PUD application. b. Guidelines. (1) A diversity of color should be used on homes, as compared with monotonous shades of heige and grey, throughout the plat. G. Rn ifs. 1, Design Objective. Provide a variety of mof forms and profiles that add character and relief to the streetscape. u. Standards. (1) Primary R-1711tch. Primary roof pitches shall be a minimum of 6:12. (2) Gable Forms, See Figure 10- (a) Roof pttches for gable farms on the public sides of the buildings shall be a. minimum of 8:12. (b) Exit access for a third floor must face a public right-of-way for emergency access. (3) Roof Overhangs. Roof overhangs shall be a minimum of 12 inches (excluding gutter) and a maximum of 24 inches, including gutter, downspouts, and any other ornamental features. Sec Figure 11. (4) Roof Material. Roof material shall be fare retardant, such as asphalt shingle or metal. (5) Roof Color. A variety of roof colors shall be used within the development. b. Guidelines. (1) Avoid bright color, rcll.cti,c roofiug material. (2) Gravel and red the roofs are discouraged. (3) Overhangs and eaves should be detailed and proportioned to complement the architectural style of the home. FIGURE 10 - Roof Forms / FIGURE 11- Minimum Roof Overhang G' ratite5"12 XWmi n 4 z d lasw A�eeti! 12 vrw H. Entrances to Homes 1. Design Objective Design entrances that become a focal point of the homes and allow space for social interaction. a. Standards (1) Porches or stoops are required ona11 homes. (2) Stoops and porches shall be raised above the grade except where accessibility (ADA) is a priority. An accessible route may also be taken from a front driveway. (3) All porches grid stoops most take access from and face a street, access easement or the NGPE. �(4). Porch and stoop sizes shall be:. _ (a) Stoops. See Figure 12. Minimum Width. 4 the Minimum Depth: 4 feet Minimum Hcrgm: 12 inches" above gmde (b) Porebcs (Ivlimmum 60 square feet) Minimum Width 10 feet Minimum Depth. 6 fast Minimom Height 12 inches above grade b. Guidelines. (t) Where a home is located on a comer lot, i.e, at the intersection of two roads or the intersection of a road and common open space, a wrapped porch is preferred to reduce the perceived scale of the house and engage tlne street or open space on both sides. FIGURE 12 — Minimum Stoop Dimensions t a na �rsra. 12 I. Doors. Design Objective. Use front doors that are integral to the character of the homes. See Figure 13. a. Standards. (1) Front doors shall face the public realm (i.e, Lots 1 and 2 towards Chelan PI NE; Lots 3 and 4 towards the NUPE (west); Lots 5 through 12 towards the NGPE (east); Lot 13 towards the NGPE (south); Lots 14 and 15 towards Tract A (south); and Lot 16 towards the abutting property to the west). (2) Doors shall be made of wood, fiberglass, or metal. (3) Front doors shall be paneled or have unset windows. (4) Sliding glass doors are not permitted along frontage elevation or an elevation Facing a pedestrian easement. (5) Four -inch mimmuni head andlamb trim is required around all doors. b. Guidelines. (1) Front doors should be a focal point in small lot pedestian-orieidcd neighborhoods and be in scale with the home. (2) Oversized doors should be avoided on cottage -style homes. FIGURF 13 — Doors Areeprawcnwxe uweecemnicumr - J. Primary Windows. 1. Design Objective. Use windows that are integral to the character of the homes. See Figure 14. a. Standards. (1) Primary windows shall be proportioned vertically rather than horizontally. See 15. (2) Windows are required to have a trim on all four sides. (3) Trim most be appropriate to the architectural character of the hone and be a raimmum of 3-1 /2 inches wide. (4) Vertical windows may be combined together to create a larger window area. FIGURE 14— Acceptable Windows b. Guidelines. (1) Divided light windows are encouraged. They must either be nue divided light or have properly proportioned mullions applied to the window. hrdividual parres must be vcriical ly proportioned ar square. FIGURE 15—Primary Window Example Wiatl dcPmpm4AntA �yd�;. �y��-�. �Y portio u0'.Veil cyaY R K. Chimneys. 1. Design Objective. When used, design chimneys that refect the architectural style of the homes. a. Standards. (1) Chimneys ahovethe roof shall be at least 20 inches x 24 inches as measured in the plan. (2) Wood -framed chimney enclosures are permitted; however metal termination caps shall not be left exposed. These reps shall be shroud in a metal chimney arumnnd. b. Guidelines. (1) Chimney form and shape should reflect the proportions of m:uomy tradition. Skinny long chimneys out of concert w;th the house proportions or not naturally anchored into the roof forms and walls are unacceptable, (2) Overly stylistic chimneys are discouraged. Chimney shape and profile should appropriately reflect the stylistic direction of the rest of the house. I- Columns, Trim, and Corner Boards. 1. Design Objective. Design colrmuvs, trim work, and corner boards to add visual detail to the house. a. Standards. (1) Columns. See Figure 16, (a) Character columns shall be round, fluted, or strongly related to the home's architectural style. (b) Exposed 4 x 4, and 6 x 6 ineb posts are proluhited. (2) Conners. See Figure 17. (a) i Ise metal comer clips or comer boards at comers where siding is used. Conner boards shall be a namirnim of 2-1/2 im>hes in width (b) Corner boards shal I be painted or color stained to match the main massing colors of the residence. FIGURE 16 - Corner Board FIGURE 17 - Columns co�.rnr iso:,+a r.,.eiauie comp+e. un�seywtik e„Iw b. Guidelines. (1) Columns, trim, and corner boards should reflect the architectural character of the home. M. Gutters and Downspouts. 1. Design Objective. Integral. the gutters and downspouts into the home's color scheme. a. Standards. (I) Gutters shall be painted or of an integral color to closely match the nim color. b. Guidelines. (1) Gutters and downspouts should reflect the architectural character of the home. N. Architecture Detail and Features. 1. Design Objective. Establish a desirable human scale next to pedeatriau routes by fire use of shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, and columns. See Figure 18. a. Standards. (1) At least one of the following features shall be used: (a) Shutters (b) Flower Boxes (c) I{nee Braces (d) Columns (2) Shutters, flower boxes, and omarnental knee braces shall follow the home's architectural style. (3) Shutters shall be proportioned to the window size to simulate the ability to cover them. b. Guidelines. (1) Give special care in the character, detail, and finish ofhuman scale architectural details. (2) Use a detail, that is appropriate to the architectural character of the home. FIGURE IS -Architectural Details and Features O. Mal and Newspaper Boxes. 1, Design Objective. Place and design mailboxes to hest serve the neighborhood and reflect the character of the commodity. a. Standards. (1) All mailboxes shall be clustared and lockable consistent with USPS standards. Clustered mailboxes shall be architecturally enhanced with materials and details typical of the home's architecture and carefully placed to not adversely affect the privacy of residents and serve the needs of the U.S. Postal Service. See Figure 19. b. Guidelines. (1) Mailbox locations should be easily accessible to each resident and architecturally compatible with the home. FIGURE; 19 - Mailbox Design ITM P. Hot Tubs and Mechanical Equipment. 1. Design Objective. Mhumize the impacts offer tubs and pool equipment on surrounding properties. a. Standards. (1) Hot tubs and pools shall be located only in backyards. (2) Pools and spas shall be designed to minimize sight and sound impacts to adjoining property. (3) Pool heaters and pumps shall be screwed hrom view and sound insulated. (4) Pool equipment must comply with codes regarding fencing and screwing. b. Guidelines. (1) Hot rub and mechetrical equipment should be placed as to not negatively impact neighbors. Q. Accessory Structures. 1. Design Objective. Minimize tlreimpacts of accessory structures. a. Standards. (I) No more than one accessary structure shall be permitted per lot and shall be architecturally consistent with the principal structure. (2) Greenhouses, sheds, and the, accessory structures shall not exceed 12 feet to top of roof in height or more than 150 square feet in size. (3) They shall be no closer than 3 feet from the interior side or rear property line. (4) Overhangs and roof drainage may not encroach over preperry lines. (5) Accessory structures are not allowed in front yards. (6) Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) shall be prohibited. b. Guidelines. (1) Avoid locating accessory structures in areas visible from the street. IH. Landscape Elements. This landscape Section is essential toward enhancing the character of the Chelan Creek PITH development. Landscaping is in important aspect of the creation of space and scale when using small lots. In conjunction with arehitecnue, landscape design enables builders to create a transition between homes and the street while mitigating the impact of denser housing. A. Fences and Hedges. 1. Design Objective. The incorporation of fences and hedges azonnd a housing unitto define private spaces. Sec Figure 20. a. Standards. Fences and hedges shall not be placed near neighborhood streets in such a way to create a safety or entering sight distance con— FIGURE 185.17-39 —Front Yard Decorative Fences and Fledges x� r atnw`{4 a0 mu,5ai+d, pc wa61.siwuraj.� v n nye' (1) Front Yard Decorative Fence. If used fences shall be decorative and help to define semi -private areas in the front of the home. If. split rail fence is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, secondary front yard fences shall be prohibited. (a) The maxi num height shall be 36 inches. (b) Front yard decorative fences shall be located a r airi num of 1 foot from purest line to allow for planting betwear edge of sidewalk or right-of-way and fence. (c) Front yard decorative fences shall provide a balance of solid surfaces and wids, such as picket or Kentucky rail fence styles. (d) Front yard decorative fences shall be constructed of wood, simulated wood, iron, or masonry. Solid fences and chain link shall be prohibited. (2) Hedges. Hosed, hedges sball be continuous along the front and side property line, and the street frontage. If a split rail fence is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, hedges shall be prohibited in the front yard. (a) The maximum height of a hedge in a front yard shall be 36 inches. (b) The maximum height of a hedge for the first 15 feet of the front yards or yards abutting Chelan Ave NE shall be 36 inches the maximum height for the remaining portions of the yards shall be 6 feet. (c) Everip ecru native plant material is preferred for year-round coverage. (3) Privacy Fencing. If. split reit fames is required in the front yard, as a condition of approval, privacy fencing shall be prohibited in the front yard. If used, privacy fencing shall be in character witlrthe home's architecture. See Figia.21. FIGURE 21—Public Side of Fence 'm eaAsrne "N' i a+s' (a) Privacy fencing in a front yard shall not be permitted. (b) For lots where the privacy fencing —ld be placed facing the street or access lane (Except for Duvall Ave NE), the maximum height of the fust 15 feet of the fencing as measured from the front fagade, shall be 36 inches. The maximum height of the remainder of the privacy fencing shall be 6 feet. (c) For lots where the privacy fencing would be placed facing Duvall Ave NE the maximum height of the fencing shall be 6 feet. (d) Privacy fencing adi—t to a public space shall be setback a minimum of 1 foot from the property line. (e) Privacy fencing shall be constructed of wood, simulated wood, iron, or masonry. Chari link fencing shall not be permitted TV. Ligbting. The purpose of this Section is to offer design standards for lighting that will enhance visibility andsecurity while aa;enting key arehitectural elements and landscape features. A. Exterior Lighting. I. Design Objective. Design lighting that provides safety and character, and aesthetic benefits forthe neighborhood. a. Standards. (1) The lighting for neighborhood streets and pedestrian pathway shall be low intensity and shall ba frrorn the same r—ily of fixtures. (2) All exterior lighting shall be prevented from projecting light upward either by placement beneath building eaves or by an integral shield of the fixture's interiors as recommended by the manufacturer. (7) Sheet lighting on neighborhood streets and access lanes within the boundary of a small lot neighborhood development shall be requircal. (a) All sheet lighting fixtures shallbe a maximum height of 16 feet. (4) Sidewalks and pathways not otherwise illuminatedby street lighting shall be lit with ornamental lighting fxtwes subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Iviamiger. All pedestrian lighting fixtures shall be a maximum height of 12 feet. (5) Lighting shall be limited to illumination of surfaces intended for pedestrians, vehicles, .,key architectural foatures. b. Guidetines. (1) The character of the lighting fixtures shall be appropriate for the architecture and to a human scale. (2) Spillover lighting should be avoided. This includes li ht that is broadcast beyond the intended area; for example, street lights that illuminate residential windows -residential food lights that ilhunirratebeyond the lot boundary. (7) Apply minimal lighting wherepossible to accomplish desired purpose. The selection of lights should be of appropriate height and light direction to minimize conflicts with neighbors. (4) Avoid lighting large areas with a single source.