HomeMy WebLinkAboutFieldbrook Commons, Preliminary Planned Urban DevelopmentC 11R
;'Ty
C1 s y CLEWS OFpIC��-
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Fieldbrook Commons )
FINAL DECISION
Preliminary Planned Urban )
Development )
LUA12-001, ECF, PPUD
X01►/
The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development ("PUD") for the
construction of a multi -family development containing 162 units. The application is approved
subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
Vanessa Dolbee, senior planner, summarized the staff report, stating that the Fieldbrook Commons
project is located at 17040 108th Avenue SE and is comprised of three vacant parcels, totaling 10.77
acres. The site is located in the residential medium density comprehensive plan land -use designation.
The applicant is requesting SEPA Environmental Review and a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development for the construction of a multi -family development containing 162 units in the
Residential 14 (R-14) units per acre zone. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162
units resulting in a density of 18 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 13 separate
multi -family residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 183,795 square feet. The
proposal includes 1, 2, and 3 -bedroom units. Building sizes would range from 10,000 to 18,500sq ft.
Building heights would range from 23 ft to 36'9" ft. Parking has been proposed for 210 vehicles.
The site can be accessed via 3 points along SE 172nd Street and one emergency vehicle only access
off of 108th Avenue SE. Additionally, the subject site contains six wetlands and a moderate -risk
sinkhole area (a coal mine hazard). The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
area along the eastern portion of the site [areas shown in orange in exhibit 19] and develop the
remainder of the site by filling three wetlands [areas shown in blue in exhibit 19] and protecting 31
existing trees. A created wetland has been proposed as a_form of mitigation. This wetland will be
approximately 25,430 sq ft. The site has 786 trees, and an arborist report determined 227 of the trees
were dead, diseased, and/or dangerous. An environmental review was conducted on the project, and,
on January 7, a determination of non-significant, mitigated was issued with 10 mitigation measures.
There were no appeals filed during the 14 -day appeal period. Staff received comments from the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Department of Ecology, and the public regarding the project. The
DOE and Tribe comments were related to the wetland filling. Public comments covered a range of
issues, including traffic, flooding, wetlands, tree removal, and habitat.
Ms. Dolbee noted that PUD applications permit modifications from the city's development standards
with the exception of uses allowed in the zone and density. The R-14 zone allows a density range of
10-14 dwelling units per acre, except an applicant can ask for a bonus density of up to 18 dwelling
units per acre. The applicant has asked for this bonus density. Additionally, the applicant requested
a modification to the number of units per building. The applicant asked to have up to 17 units per
building, rather than six. Also, the applicant requested a maximum height increase to 369.25 ft.
(which is 6 ft. over the maximum height). The applicant also asked for permission to remove trees in
the wetland buffers and modify the frontage improvements along 108th Avenue SE to have a 5ft
sidewalk and 8ft planter strip. Ms. Dolbee added that Renton staff has requested modifications to the
development standards based on review of the application. First, staff asked for a reduction of the
parking stall requirement from 208 to 200 stalls. Second, staff requested the perimeter landscaping
be accepted as is from the submitted landscaping plan. Finally, staff asked that the garden beds be
allowed to remain at 4x8ft instead of 10x10.
According to Ms. Dolbee, PUD projects are required to demonstrate superiority in design. This
project demonstrates superiority in that (1) it has a recreation center that would be open to the public
(2) a covered school bus shelter has been proposed at the corner of 108th Ave and 172nd Street (3)
building orientation and consolidation provides opportunities to increase the common open space (4)
consolidated units allows for greater preservation of mature trees (5) and a public wetland trail is
being provided. The total open space area proposed is approximately I I1,OOOsq ft which is above
the 97,300 sq ft requirement. The architecture design includes modulation and variation in building
materials. The project meets all the comprehensive plan and zoning standards if the conditions listed
in the staff report are complied with by the applicant.
In regard to parking, Ms. Dolbee testified that the large number of surface spaces detracts from the
overall aesthetics of the project. 78 percent of the site is surface parking. There are two options (1)
reduce the parking requirement to allow space for landscaping or (2) reduce the density requirement
to reduce the parking requirement. The applicant has indicated there is sufficient parking to meet the
demand created by the development if the first option is adopted. In regard to landscaping, the
applicant submitted a detailed landscaping plan with the application. The plan notes that street trees
will be planted along 108th Ave and 172nd Street along with a 1Oft wide landscaping strip along all
frontages. In regard to wetland impacts, the applicant submitted a wetland creation and mitigation
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
plan. The cumulative impacts to the wetlands should be taken into consideration when evaluating
approval of the project. In regard to density, the applicant has requested approval for bonus density.
To meet the requirements for bonus density, the applicant has proposed to complete (1) a 2400sq_ft
recreation center (2) no more than six stalls with a minimum of 15ft of landscaping in between. The
PUD and bonus density requests must be evaluated together. The main issue of conflict, in staff's
view, is the parking conflict. The applicant has proposed mitigation measures to add landscaping to
these parking areas, but it remains unclear to staff if the applicant can meet the parking landscape
standards while also achieving a superior design.
Ms. Dolbee stated that staff has created three recommendations for the project: (1) approval of the
PUD subject to 31 conditions; however, bonus density should only be approved if the surface parking
lot presence can be reduced while the open space square footage remains as proposed or (2) approval
of partial bonus density; however, the surface parking lot presence should still be reduced or (3)
approval of the PUD subject to 31 conditions provided the recreation center remains part of the
development. The applicant can reduce the surface parking lot presence by changing the number of
units or adding parking spaces to garages. If the unit configurations remain as are, staff does not
recommend reducing the parking requirement below 200 stalls. Staff believes, if planned
appropriately, 200 stalls could meet the design standards.
In regard to the Department of Ecology comments, Ms. Dolbee referred to the environmental review
report (page 10 footnote) to distinguish between the city's and DOE's categorization of wetlands.
DOE category three wetlands equal city of Renton category two. DOE was consulted on the final
mitigation plan and submitted an email stating that the department was comfortable with the current
proposal.
Kayren Kittrick, Development and Engineering Supervisor, stated that a limited traffic study was
required, as opposed to a full traffic study, because the city already had information on most of the
adjoining roads. The city only needed the applicant to provide the number of additional trips that
would be created by the project, so the city could to apply these numbers to information already on
record.
Applicant Testimony
Dennis Riebe, architect for the project, testified that the applicant agrees with the 31 conditions of
approval outlined in the staff report. In regard to parking and bonus density, staff has indicated that
the applicant can reduce the parking spot quantity to 200 stalls. This reduction allows the applicant to
break up clusters of parking areas with landscaping. The clusters of parking stalls are noted in exhibit
8. Mr. Riebe has created a solution to the cluster -parking, utilizing landscape islands. This solution
demonstrates that the parking condition can be met without having a significant impact to the project.
The landscape islands ensure that no cluster of parking spaces is greater than seven stalls, which
meets condition of approval number 11. The parking stall count reduces from 210 to 204 stalls with
this new plan. Mr. Riebe submitted his parking solution as exhibit 22. In regard to roadway widths,
he noted that the applicant believes they can meet all roadway width standards without any significant
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
impact to the site. By moving building B, the driveway aisle can be increased, thus the roadway
width standard will be met. Mr. Riebe marked the wetlands that will be filled on exhibit 22.
Public Comments
Timothy Bell stated he lives on 173rd Street at the south -end of the Fieldbrook property. The site
plan notes a community trash deposit adjacent to Mr. Bell's property. He asked if this is still the
planned location. Additionally, the moderate -risk sinkhole area abuts his property. He requested
more information on mitigation measures being required for the sinkhole area. Finally, he noted that
there is no buffer planned between his home and the new apartment buildings. He does not wish to
look out his backyard onto high buildings.
Katrina Garrison testified that she owns property to the south of the Fieldbrook project. She is
concerned with parking overflow onto the streets. Recently, several new apartment complexes have
been built in the area. These complexes have resulted in parking overflow onto city streets. The
overflow creates dangerous driving conditions because the roads are not wide enough. Additionally,
when Ms. Garrison questioned the city as to why traffic studies were waived for the project, city staff
responded that this had been overlooked due to staff being overworked. Ms. Garrison noted that
traffic is already a problem in the area, and she has experienced traffic conditions that resulted in it
taking 30 minutes to travel two miles. Also, she is worried about water flow. Currently, there is
standing water in her backyard, and she believes the project will increase the problem. Finally, she
noted that she is also concerned with the heights of the new buildings.
Staff Rebuttal
Vanessa Dolbee stated that, in regard to Mr. Bell's trash concerns, the refuse and recycling has been
relocated (exhibit 22). The code requires that refuse and recycling be a minimum of 50ft from
bordering residential properties. Additionally, the facility is required to be screened. In regard to the
coal mine hazard, there is a mitigation measure as part of the SEPA that requires additional analysis
of the area. She is unaware if these environmental studies have been completed as of yet. In regard
to overflow parking, Ms. Dolbee noted that no parking study was submitted with the application, but
there was a limited traffic study completed. Currently, the city is planning traffic improvements
along 515 and Carr Road. This project is fully funded and should begin in 2014. The parking
proposed with the project is for the residents. The code requires a little over 1 space per unit. The
project would have additional street parking after frontage improvements are completed. In regard to
the heights of the building, the Bell and Garrison properties would abut buildings that asked for a
height increase above the maximum standard. In regard to stormwater, improvements on the project
should mitigate any off-site impacts, and the planned improvements are compliant with 2009 King
County Stormwater Code.
Kayren Kittrick noted that she does not believe the city's parking design standards are intended to
prevent overflow parking. The city has methods of controlling the overflow, however.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4
I Applicant Rebuttal
_2_ Dennis _Riebe stated that, in regard to the trash enclosure, the recycling and refuse area has been
3 moved to meet the 50ft minimum requirement of the city. In regard to the coal mine hazard area,
there is a mitigation requirement in SEPA and studies will be conducted before construction. In
4 regard to stormwater, the project's discharge area will be south of the Garrison property. The new
discharge point will be part of one of the wetlands created for the project. All of the stormwater
5 mitigation will be underground. The applicant sited the higher buildings of the project to the east of
6 the property to create a larger buffer area for neighbors. The property on the eastside of the project is
coal -mine tailings area which is open space. This eastern property belongs to an existing apartment
7 project.
8 Ms. Dolbee read condition 31 (exhibit 20) into the record.
9 EXHIBITS
10 Exhibits 1-18, identified at page 3 of the staff report, were admitted during the hearing. In
11 addition the following exhibits were admitted during the hearing and during a written comment
period after close of the verbal portion of the hearing:
12
13 19. Staff power point presentation.
20. Order Quieting Title; King County Superior Court 11-2-30314-4 KNT
14 21. 2/11/13 email from Katrina Garrison to Vanessa Dolby
22. Open Space Recreation Public Benefit Diagram
15 23. February 14, 2013 letter to Examiner from Vanessa Dolbee regarding Ex. 22
24. February 15, 2013 letter to examiner from applicant requesting extension of record to
16 February 22, 2013.
17 25. February 15, 2013 letter from Kayren Kittrick to examiner.
26. February 20, 2013 email from applicant requesting extension of record to March 15,
18 2013.
26. 2/23/13 email from examiner to parties.
19 27. 2/26/13 letter from Vanessa Dolbee to examiner.
20 28. 2/28/13 letter from applicant to examiner
28. 3/7/13 email from examiner to parties
21 29/ 3/7/13 email from applicant to examiner
22
23 FINDINGS OF FACT
24 Procedural:
25
26 1. Applicant. PNW Holdings, LLC.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2. Hem. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on February 12, 2013 at
10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. At the request of the applicant the record was left
open through March 15, 2013 in order to _ provide _ time for the applicant to comment _ on _ staff
recommendations regarding modifications submitted by the applicant during the February 12, 2013
hearing.
Substantive:
3. Project Description. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development
for the construction of a multi -family development containing 162 units on a 10.8 acre parcel at
17040 108th Ave SE. Bonus density has been requested to provide for the 162 units resulting in a
density of 17.90 units per acre. The development would be comprised of 12 separate multi -family
residential structures and one recreation building, totaling 180,934 square feet. All parcels are
currently undeveloped. The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one
emergency vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. The subject site contains six wetlands and is
currently forested. The applicant has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the
eastern portion of the site and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands and
protecting 31 existing trees. The applicant submitted a wetland report and mitigation plan which has
undergone secondary review. Additional studies include a stormwater report, traffic study,
geotechnical report, and an arborist report. The proposed development would result in approximately
17,361 cubic yards of cut and 12,479 cubic yards of fill to be balanced across the site. Frontage
improvements are proposed along 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,526 square
feet of dedicated public right-of-way.
The following provides more detailed bulk and dimensional information on each proposed building:
BLDG. # '
Total Footprint
Total Area
BLDG Height
ToEUnits
A
5,152
10,251
27'-21/4"
9
B
7,002
16,098
30'-81/4"
14
C
5,955
14,050
32-3 3/8"
13
D
5,955
14,050
28'-41/2"
13
E
7,002
16,098
28'-8 3/8"
14
G
5,955
14,050
23'-111/8"
13
H
5,955
14,050
27'-0 3/8"
13
J
5,955
18,507
31'-8 3/8"
17
K
5,152
15,345
33'-7 3/8"
14
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
L
5,152
15,345
1/4"
14
M
5,152
--36'-9
15,345
34'-10"
14
N
5,152
15,345
34'-111/4"
14
Recreation
BLDG.
2,400
2,400
19'-3 7/8"
N/A
The applicant has requested the following modifications through the PUD process:
REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM 'REWON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC)
RMC #
Required per RMC
Requested Modification
RMC 4-2-11OA:
No more than six (6) dwelling
To provide buildings with up to
Maximum Number of
units per building.
17 units per building as
Units per Building
detailed in the preceding table.
RMC 4-2-11OA:
Residential and Civic Uses: 30
To allow up to 36 feet 9 1/4
Maximum Building
ft.
inches in height, as identified
Height, except for uses
in the preceding table.
having a "Public Suffix"
(P) designation and
public water system
facilities
RMC 4-4-130D.3:
3. Restrictions for Critical
Tree removal in wetland
Restrictions for Critical
Areas — General: Unless
buffers to be permitted.
Areas
exempted by critical areas,
RMC 4-3-05005 or Shoreline
Master Program Regulations,
RMC 4-3-090, no tree
removal, or land clearing, or
ground cover management is
permitted:
a. On portions of property
with protected critical
habitats, per RMC 4-3-050K;
streams and lakes, per RMC 4-
3-050L; Shorelines of the
State, per RMC 4-3-090,
Renton Shoreline Master
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8
Program Regulations; and
wetlands, per RMC 4-3-050M;
and their_ associated buffers;
RMC 4-6-060F.2.
Frontage improvements on
Frontage of 108th Ave. SE to
Minimum Design
108th Ave SE shall include 8'
include a 5' sidewalk and an 8'
Standards for Public
sidewalks and 8' planter strips
planter strip.
Streets and Alleys
per the current code.
Frontage improvements on SE
172nd St shall include 32 feet
of pavement from the south
to the north then an 8'
planter strip and (working to
the north) a 5' sidewalk.
*RMC 4-4-080F.10.e.
Attached dwellings in RM -U,
The applicant has proposed to
Parking Spaces Required
RM -T, RM -F, R-14 and R-10
provide 56 one bedroom units,
Based on Land Use
Zones: A minimum and
88 two bedroom units, and 18
maximum of 1.6 spaces per 3
three bedroom units, resulting
bedroom or large dwelling
in a requirement to provide
unit; 1.4 spaces per 2
208 parking stalls. Request is
bedroom dwelling unit; and
to provide 200 parking stalls.
1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or
studio dwelling unit is
required.
*RMC 4-4-070H.4.
Such landscaping shall be at
Perimeter Parking Lot
Perimeter Parking Lot
least ten feet (10') in width as
Landscaping be approved as
Landscaping.
measured from the street
proposed in the provided
right-of-way. Standards for
conceptual landscape plan
planting shall be as follows:
SEPA Exhibit 11.
a. Trees shall be two inches
(2") in diameter at breast
height (dbh) for multi -family,
commercial, and industrial
uses at an average minimum
rate of one tree per thirty (30)
lineal feet of street frontage.
b. Shrubs at the minimum
rate of one per twenty (20)
square feet of landscaped
area. Up to fifty percent (50%)
of shrubs may be deciduous.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by Soos Creek Water District. The applicant has proposed to connect to existing
Soos Creek facilities located in 108th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. A water and sewer
availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit
application. With a water and sewer availability certificate, the provided utilities plans
and the existing infrastructure in the area, the development would be provided with
sufficient water and sewer services.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9
c. Ground cover in sufficient
quantities to provide at least
ninety percent (90%)
coverage of the landscaped
area within three (3) years of
installation.
*RMC 4-2-115F.2. Open
Standards for Common Open
Raised beds 4 ft. x 8 ft. and a
Space
Space: Pea -patches shall be at
fence height of 6 ft. 10 in.
least one thousand (1,000)
square feet in size with
individual plots that measure
ten feet by ten feet (10'x 10').
Additionally, the pea -patch
shall include a tool shed and a
common area with space for
compost bins. Water shall be
provided to the pea -patch.
Fencing that meets the
standards for front yard
fencing shall surround the
pea -patch with a one foot (1')
landscape area on the outside
of the fence. This area is to be
landscaped with flowers,
plants, and/or shrubs.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by Soos Creek Water District. The applicant has proposed to connect to existing
Soos Creek facilities located in 108th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. A water and sewer
availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the construction permit
application. With a water and sewer availability certificate, the provided utilities plans
and the existing infrastructure in the area, the development would be provided with
sufficient water and sewer services.
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates
all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water
runoff increases. The applicant has submitted -a Preliminary Technical Information Report
("drainage report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 2). The drainage
report assures that project design adequately accommodates needed drainage facilities and
more detailed engineering review and final construction or bonding will be completed
prior to final PUD approval. Some public comments expressed concern about stormwater
impacts. The City's stormwater standards require that pre -development off-site flows be
maintained by the project, which means that neighboring property owners should not
encounter increased stormwater flows as a result of the project.
D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The
applicant has provided a variety of recreation and open space throughout the development.
As proposed the development would contain a large number of open space/recreation
areas as shown in Exhibit 3. These areas total 111,0181 SF in area which is above the R-14
requirement of 97,300 SF (common open space = 350 SF x 162 units = 56,700 SF and
private open space 250 SF x 162 units = 40,600 SF, for a total of 97,300 SF requirement).
Amenities throughout the development in the open space/recreation areas (excluding those
areas allocated to bonus density) include community garden space, a recreation center that
will be made available to the general public, a pickle ball court, three play structures,
picnic table, BBQ, benches, open lawn play area, passive park space with arbor, and a soft
surface trail through the wetland buffers. The provided open space areas are scattered
throughout the development and would provide a variety of recreation options to the
community. All open spaces are accessed via a pedestrian sidewalk and/or trail directly
from the units and from the street.
In addition to the provided recreation space, the proposed trail through the wetland
includes interpretive signage/information kiosk at the trail entrance and a second located
near the "dog leg" parcel. Information was not provided with the application identifying
what would be included on the information kiosk. However, providing the public with
' 9,720 square feet of the provide 111,018 square feet of open space is provide in the form of private open space as
either ground floor patios or upper floor decks. Based on the information in Exhibit 3, each private space is
approximately 60 square feet. However, staff s analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at
6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet. If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48
square feet per unit the overall open space in the development would be reduced to 109,074 square feet, which still
exceeds the minimum requirement. In a 2/28/13 post -hearing letter the applicant asserts that the total amount of
open space is actually 113,172 square feet. The relevant point from the different amounts presented is that the
proposed open space significantly exceeds that required by the underlying RS -14 zone.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
information about the critical areas and the mitigation project would be an important role
for the kiosk to convey. This information may help to preserve the mitigation project and
protect the critical areas in the future. As such, a condition of approval requires that the
kiosk design and signage be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit issuance. Additionally the wetland trail should be
open for the general public so the neighborhood can take advantage of the amenity. The
expansion of the trail to public use, results in an increase in public benefit as a result of the
overall project. In order to achieve public access, signage shall be provided and an
easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail.
Furthermore, comments were received from the City of Renton Community Services
Department recommending the trail through the wetland is looped. Typically, public trails
are designed to loop if possible, as looped trails are more attractive to the public and more
commonly used. Based on the Park's department recommendation; the conditions require
that the trail be re -designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso" shape to provide
a turnaround that acts like a loop. A full loop is not available at this location due to the
presence of wetlands.
E. Pedestrian Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation
system. The applicant is proposing to provide street improvements which would include
the extension of public sidewalks along both 108th Ave. SE and SE 172nd St. Once off
the public sidewalks pedestrian sidewalks continue throughout the development along the
internal "street" system and through the open space areas. Pedestrian connections are
provided throughout the development including cross walks and connections to the refuse
and recycling, parking areas and site amenities. With compliance with the conditions of
approval, the pedestrian circulation system throughout the development would be well
designed and would encourage walkability throughout the neighborhood, potentially
reducing vehicular traffic and impacts on the neighboring community.
Based on the provided Traffic Impact Analysis, no safety concerns were identified
(Exhibit 14). The applicant has avoided many potential safety issues by providing
pedestrian crossings throughout the development and alternative routes for pedestrians by
providing for separation of vehicles and pedestrians throughout the site. However, many
sections of the sidewalk proposed in areas near garages would be constructed at grade with
the internal drive aisle. This type of construction would not provide for sufficient
separation of vehicles from pedestrians. In fact this type of design may result in conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians. Furthermore, by not providing a clear delineation as to
where the driveway/tandem parking area ends and the pedestrian sidewalks vehicles could
end up blocking the intended pedestrian walkway resulting in pushing the pedestrians out
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
into the road. As such, the proposed design would not provide a safe environment for
pedestrians. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that all sidewalks and cross walks
in the development be built with a different material than the roadways, drive aisles and
driveways. The different materials would provide a clear delineation as to where the
parking stall ends and the pedestrian pathway begins. In addition to different materials,
the projects bylaws or CC & R's should restrict parking across the pedestrian pathways
throughout the development.
The street frontage improvements along SE 172nd Street, 108th Ave. SE and internal to
the site provide a pedestrian connection to the commercial development located southwest
of the site along Benson Dr. SE. Furthermore, the applicant has proposed to provide a
covered bus stop for the school bus which would be connect to the proposed development
and surrounding neighborhood by the new street frontage improvements. South of the site
along SE 176th St. or SE Petrovitsky Rd., is multiple Metro transit stops providing public
transit to the development and access to the greater community.
F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. The PUD provides for an appropriate interior vehicle
circulation system. An internal vehicular street system is proposed to provide vehicular
access to each unit. As shown in the Environmental Review Report, subsection 5.
Transportation (Exhibit 2) incorporated herein by reference, the project would provide
sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the proposed public and
private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic demand created by
the development.
G. Off -Site Traffic Improvements. Off-site impacts are adequately addressed by proposed
frontage improvements and required traffic impact fees. A limited scope traffic impact
analysis was prepared for the project, Ex. 14. The analysis concluded that the level of
service standards required for affected intersections would not be lowered below adopted
City of Renton standards (LOS D). The study concluded that no off-site mitigation is
necessary beyond payment of Renton's traffic impact fees and frontage improvements.
The site would be accessed at three locations along SE 172nd Street and one emergency
vehicle only access off of 108th Avenue SE. As shown in the Environmental Review
Report, subsection 5. Transportation (Exhibit 2) incorporated herein by reference, the
project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and the
proposed public and private streets could accommodate emergency vehicles and the traffic
demand created by the development. Frontage improvements are proposed along 108th
Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street, including 24,525.51 square feet of dedicated public
right-of-way. As noted in the environmental review committee report, several members of
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12
1
21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
review. A set of alterations and mitigation has been approved through the mitigation
measures of a determination of non -significance that has not been appealed. Since the
proposed wetland filling and mitigation_ approved in the DNS has not been appealed, the issue
cannot be revisited by the examiner. See, Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904 (2002).
The Washington State Department of Ecology engaged in back and forth communications on
the proposed wetlands alterations and ultimately approved of the staff's final
recommendations.
B. Coal Mine Hazards. The coal mine hazard was identified as a Moderate Risk Sinkhole
Hazard Area. A geotechnical report assessed the coal mine hazard and recommends a setback
to the hazard area. This setback area will be included in the conditions of approval. The
SEPA mitigation measures also require that additional study of the coal mining hazard be
conducted prior to final PUD approval.
C. Wildlife. Public comments express a concern over impacts to wildlife. A habitat study was
completed for the project and no protected species have been identified at the project site.
Public comments note that eagles have been seen resting in the trees, but no assertion has been
made that these areas are used for eagle nests. The filling of wetlands will result in the loss of
wildlife habitat, but the applicant is replacing that lost habitat with new wetlands that
significantly exceed the area of those filled. The open space of the proposal is also
significantly more than that required for multi -family development in the R-14 zoning district.
D. Compatibility. The proposed project provides for aggregated units which in turn provides for
increased opportunities for open space throughout the overall development. All units either
face onto a public street and/or an open space green area or park space. Furthermore, the
reduction in buildings provides the opportunity to preserve existing mature trees within the
development. The preservation of some of the existing tree canopy will increase the
compatibility of the development within the surrounding community.
The development would not be fenced which would provide for community connection,
further enhancing a sense of community in the neighborhood. Pursuant to code, the applicant
could fence the entire development walling it off from the neighborhood degrading the sense
of community. Without a fence, the project allows for neighborly interaction and opens up the
development as if it is part of the overall community instead of a separate private area.
The architectural design of the proposed buildings varies from building to building, however
common themes persist throughout all the proposed structures. The applicant has proposed a
variety of siding materials including cultured stone veneer, hard shingle siding, smooth lap
siding, and hard panel smooth siding. In addition to wood corbels and knee braces, wood
vents with wood trim, prominent entry features, and detailed balconies railings are proposed.
See Exhibit 6 for details of each separate building design. However, a few portions of the
overall design could enhance the street presence of the internal "street" system. Particularly
the ground floor garage doors could provide additional detailing such as windows and the
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
the public expressed concern over off-site traffic impacts, but the traffic analysis
completed for the project establishes that traffic generation levels will be within the levels
found acceptable under adopted level of service standards
H. Parking. For multi -family developments in the R-14 district a minimum and maximum of
1.6 parking spaces per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 spaces per 2 bedroom
dwelling unit; and 1.0 spaces per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit is required. The
applicant has proposed to provide 56 one bedroom units, 88 two bedroom units, and 18
three bedroom units, resulting in a requirement to provide 208 parking stalls. Based on
the provided site plan, 39 spaces would be provided in garages, 8 in ADA Accessible
garages, 46 tandem spaces in the driveways and 117 surface parking stalls for a total of
210 parking stalls. Twenty two percent of the provided parking stalls would be located in
garages and therefore screened by the structure. However, the remaining 78 percent would
be outside surface parking stalls. Overall, the excessive amount of surface parking stalls
scattered throughout the development detracts from the aesthetics of the overall
development and the quality architectural design and landscaping proposed throughout the
development. Some section of surface parking stalls are separated by landscaped areas
and are 7 stalls or less. However, some sections of surface parking stalls contain long
rows without landscaping. The conditions of approval require that the long rows or
parking be broken up by landscaped areas to reduce the visual impact of surface parking
throughout the development. Furthermore, a reduced number of parking stalls to 200 stalls
from 208 stalls is approved to achieve the necessary parking lot landscaping. Overall the
development is over -parked by two stalls, with the reduction of stalls a significant amount
of new landscaping could be provided, however sufficient parking would still need to be
provided at the subject site to achieve the demand created by the development.
The provided parking is located in groups near the buildings it would serve. The proposed
development does not have shared parking facilities nor the opportunity to conduct shared
parking as the entire development is residential.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Wetlands. Six wetlands have been identified and delineated on the subject site. The applicant
has proposed to preserve the wetlands and forested area along the eastern portion of the site
and develop the remainder of the site by filling three wetlands. The applicant has also
proposed buffer averaging. The proposed wetland modifications have been thoroughly
assessed against the City's critical area regulations in the environmental review committee
report, which involved significant work by wetland consultants who were subjected to peer
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
sides of the buildings facing the public streets and internal "streets" should include an
increased "front door or front porch" presence. As such, a condition of approval requires that
the garage doors provide additional details and all sides of the building facing the public street
and/or internal "street" provide a front door or front porch presence, if this is not achievable
an approved landscape screen would be required between the sidewalk and the building.
Furthermore, the proposed buildings contain horizontal and vertical modulation, reducing the
bulk of the overall structures. The residential buildings are both two and three stories in
height. The changes in height provide for additional building modulation increasing the
variety in the overall architectural components of the development. In addition, the site abuts
single-family residential development to the north and along the southwest side of the "dog
leg" portion of the site. The buildings proposed along the north property line (BLDG. C D G
and H) are proposed to be two stories in height along the north side. By placing the two story
buildings adjacent to the north property line bulk and scale impacts are reduced for the
neighbors to the north. It should be noted along the south side of BLDG. C D G and H a
portion of the buildings are proposed to be three stories in height. BLDG. M and N located in
the "dog leg" are both three stories in height; however the development is setback from the
property line approximately 42 feet at the closest point. This setback reduces the impact on
the single-family home located adjacent to the site at this location.
Located in the center of the project is BLDG. J, which is proposed to be three stories high.
This building faces SE 172nd St. across an open space area. The building would be screened
from the street by a grouping of preserved existing trees and new landscaping, however the
scale of the building appears to be larger than anticipated by the zone and the other buildings
in the development. Building J is the largest of all the proposed building at 18,507 SF and 17
units; however it is not the tallest building. The west elevation of BLDG. J provides a variety
of materials and architectural details such as balconies and entry features to break up the
facade and reduce the overall bulk of the structure. However, the east elevation is primarily
sided with wide smooth lap siding and visually appears to be a typical large apartment
building. The east elevation of BLDG. J could be improved with additional variety in
materials and vertical modulation, similar to that of BLDG C and D, to break up the bulk of
the structure. As such, a condition of approval requires that BLDG J be re -designed to reduce
the overall appearance of bulk with vertical modulation and provide additional variety in
siding materials and color.
The proposed landscaping along the north side of the development would provide screening
for the single-family development to the north and southwest edges of the site. The screening
landscaping includes the construction of a 6 foot wood fence.
The applicant did not provide details of roof mounted equipment and/or screening identified
for such equipment. As such, a condition of approval requires that the applicant provide a
detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for roof mounted equipment,
if proposed.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Screening landscaping and fencing is required around refuse and recycling facilities. Based
on the provided landscape plan all but one facility would be screened with landscaping. The
refuse and recycling area near BLDG. E only provides landscape screening along two of the
three sides. A condition of approval will require that all refuse and recycling facilities be
screened with landscaping on a minimum of three sides.
6. Superiority in Design. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than
would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons: first,
the applicant has proposed a recreation center. Second, the applicant has included a covered school
bus shelter. Third, the overall building orientation and consolidation of the units provides
opportunities to increase the amount of common open space or green space throughout the
development significantly beyond that required for the R-14 zoning district as outlined in FOF No.
4(D). This open space area provides a large variety of recreational opportunities of both passive and
active recreation. Furthermore, the concentration of the units allows for preservation of additional
mature trees to provide retention of more than 10 percent of the trees on the site. Finally, the project
provides a wetland trail system which would include interpretive signage. The PUD modifications
requested by the applicant and identified in FOF No. 3 make this superior design possible by
providing added space for the amenities and making the improvements more economically feasible.
The project's ability to demonstrate superior design is undermined to a certain extent by the extensive
amount of parking required for the proposal in order to accommodate the applicant's request for a
bonus density. Parking is comprised of 78 percent surface parking. The proposed site plan, as shown
in SEPA Exhibit 3, utilizes an excess amount of area in order to accommodate vehicle parking
necessitated by the high density of the project, which creates adverse aesthetic impacts that nullify the
aesthetic benefits of the substantial open space proposed for the site. These parking spaces in some
cases contain surrounding landscape areas and in some cases do not. Superior design could be
maintained with the requested bonus density if the excessive amount of unmitigated surface parking
could be minimized and the additional open space could be maintained as proposed. This could be
accomplished in a number of different ways including additional landscaping and/or more parking
garages. However, it is unclear if the applicant can meet all the required parking lot landscaping
standards and the bonus density standards and at the same time achieve both a superior design and
credit for the bonus density.
At the February 12, 2013 hearing the applicant presented a parking plan, Ex. 22, they believed would
sufficiently mitigate the aesthetic impacts of the parking while maintaining the amount of proposed
open space and the proposed 18/du density. Ex. 22 depicted a series of landscape islands that
prevented the clustering of any more than seven parking stalls at a time. Ex. 22 actually provided for
a 1,022 square foot reduction in open space, but the applicant asserts this reduction resulted from
increasing driveway width as required by staff recommended conditions of approval as opposed to
improving the parking. Staff s only specific concern with Ex. 22 was that it still provided for
clustering of seven parking stalls while the bonus density criteria authorize no more than six clustered
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
parking stalls at a time. The applicant's response to this concern was that Ex. 22 was only
"conceptual" and that it would be further refined prior to final PUD approval.
The staff's concern of a "parking lot feel" of the project is certainly legitimate. It is difficult to
legitimate the proposal as a PUD with "superior design" when a large portion of the project is
comprised of a parking lot. However, regulating by standards such a "parking lot feel" is disturbingly
close to the design regulations invalidated in Anderson v. Issaquah, 70 Wn. App. 64 (1993), where
the Court of Appeals noted that
"in attempting to interpret and apply this [design] code, the Commissioners charged
with that task were left with only their own individual, subjective feelings' about the
'image of Issaquah' and as to whether this project was 'compatible' or 'interesting. "'
70 Wn. App. at 76-77.
In order to avoid the vagaries of an Issaquah design review paradigm, Renton's PUD regulations
should be applied using concrete regulatory benchmarks whenever possible. The staff report's focus
upon maintaining the open space at the area that served as the justification for a finding of "superior
design" is a good starting point. The bonus density requirement that clustering be limited to six lots
is another specific and objective design standard. Further, reducing the number of parking stalls by
removing units from the top of the tallest proposed buildings, to bring them in conformance with the
RS -14 building height is another concrete standard. Employing these standards, the conditions will
give the applicant another opportunity to meet the superior design requirements of the PUD in its
parking spaces while also qualifying for the full 4/du density bonus.
7. Public Benefit. Added public benefit is provided by the project is provided by making the bus
shelter and wetlands interpretative trail identified in FOF No. 6 open for public use. Further, the
added open space of the proposal and enhanced tree retention serves as a public benefit by enhancing
the aesthetic appearance of the development to neighboring properties. Note that the availability of
the recreation center to the public is not factored in as a public benefit, because this amenity will be
used to support the applicant's request for a density bonus.
21 11 Procedural:
22
23
24
25
26
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Authority. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final
decisions on PUD applications.
Substantive:
2. Zonin /g Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is zoned R-14. The comprehensive
plan map land use designation for the property is Residential Medium Density.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Applicable standards are quoted below
in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
RMC 4-9-150(B): 2. Code Provisions That May Be Modified:
a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modem any of the standards of chapter 4-
2 RMC chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of
this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban
development
3.s • Code Provisions Restricted from Modification
e. Specific Limitations: The City may not modify any provision of RMC 4-3-050, Critical Areas
Regulations, 4-3-090, Shoreline Master Program Regulations, 4-4-130, Tree Cutting and Land
Clearing, 4-4-060, Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations, chapter 4-5 RMC or RMC 4-6-
010 to 4-6-050 and 4-6-070 through 4-6-110 related to utilities and concurrency, except that
provisions may be altered for these codes by alternates, modification, conditional use, or variance
as specifically allowed in the referenced Chapter or Section. Such alternates, modification,
conditional use, or variance applications may be merged with the consideration of a planned urban
development per RMC 4-9-I50K
4. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations
identified in the regulation quoted above, except that the restriction on removing trees from critical
area buffers, RMC 4-4-130, may not be waived. It is unclear from the record whether any trees will
in fact be removed from critical area buffers by operation of PUD waiver standards. The conditions
of approval will prohibit this from occurring. Of course, trees may still be removed by operation of
other regulations that authorize their removal.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required.• Applicant 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.
5. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect
the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of
residential uses. The extensive filling of wetlands involved with this proposal certainly does not
further this purpose. However, the extensive open space and other public amenities, coupled with the
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
extensive mitigation for the wetland alterations, arguably makes up for this deficiency. The proposal
is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined at p. 33-35 of the staff report, adopted and
incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. As -determined in FOF No. 6, the proposal is
superior in design than that would be required without the PUD. As determined in FOF No. 4 and
No. 5, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal so it will not be unduly detrimental
to surrounding properties.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicant shall demonstrate that a proposed development
will provide specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable
effects of the proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable
impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed
planned urban development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same
degree as without a planned urban development; or
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject
property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area
wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or...
e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the
design that would result from development of the subject property without a planned urban
development. A superior design may include the following:...
6. As determined in FOF No. 7, the proposal provides for public benefits in its overall design
and amenities that exceed what would be required of a proposal outside PUD requirements. Further,
as determined in FOF No. 4 and 5 there are no significant adverse impact associated with the
proposal. The criterion is met.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met....
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria:
a. Building and Site Design:
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19
I 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
2 zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare.
3
7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposal has been designed in size, scale,
4 mass, building material and design for compatibility with adjoining uses. The staff report does not
identify whether building materials have been reviewed for reducing light and glare and this will be
5 made a condition of approval.
6
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
7 following requirements are met.
8
9 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria:
10
a. Building and Site Design:
11 ..
12 ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in groups should be
13 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
14 family, townhouses, flats, etc.
15 g As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(D), the proposed buildings have been designed to be
16 built in a coordinated fashion, utilizing a consistent set of materials yet at the same time each building
with a unique design. Furthermore, the site is designed to promote open space providing visual and
17 physical access from each unit to a shared common area. The applicant has indicated that the project
would provide a rich color palette that would be coordinated throughout the project to unify and tie
18 the neighborhood together in an organized manner.
19
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
20 following requirements are met.
21
22 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
23
24 b. Circulation:
25 i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities. The planned urban development shall have
26 sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and density of the
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20
I 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
2 approved by the City. Vehicle access shall not be unduly detrimental to adjacent_ areas._
3
9. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E) -(G).
4
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
5 following requirements are met.
6
7 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
8
9
b. Circulation:
10
11
12 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
13 gradients.
14 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the criterion above is met.
15 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
16 .following requirements are met.
17
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
18 consistency with all of the following criteria
19
20 b. Circulation:
21
22 iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public
walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
23
11. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E).
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
26
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for I consistency with all of the following criteria
I b. Circulation:
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
12. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F) and (G), the proposal has sufficient emergency
vehicle access.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
c. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements,
existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development.
13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal is served by sufficient public
infrastructure and services.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
d. Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering,
separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open space and landscaping, or
a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise required.
14. As determined in FOF No. 4, the proposal significantly exceeds open space requirements. The
site is also designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity for open space. The multiple
open spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22
I both passive and active.
2 With the application, the applicant submitted a preliminary landscape plan (SEPA_Exhibit_ 11).The
3 preliminary landscape plan included a preliminary planting schedule, which included types of trees,
shrubs and ground cover but did not identify exactly where what type of tree, shrub, and or ground
4 cover would be planted and at what spacing or interval such plants would be planted. The conditions
of approval require that the applicant provide a final landscape plan for review and approval by the
5 Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Conceptually, the provided landscape
6 plan identifies screening landscaping bordering the properties to the north and to the west of the "dog
leg" portion of the development and screening landscaping around the perimeter of the refuse and
7 recycling areas. In addition, the plan identifies street trees would be planted along both SE 172nd St.
and 108th Ave. SE. However, comments were received from the City's urban forester requesting that
8 Tulip and Red Maple trees are not used as street trees. As such, a condition of approval prohibits the
9 use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees. Overall, the applicant has proposed to landscape all
areas not proposed to be impervious surface with a combination of both evergreen and deciduous
10 trees, shrubs and ground cover.
11 Aggregating the units into a smaller number of buildings and providing for stacked units, as
12 proposed, the overall project has less impervious surface than otherwise would be expected. Based
on the provided TIR the site would contain approximately 42.5% impervious surfaces for the overall
13 site. This would include building areas, associated walkways, driveways, parking and drive aisles and
would total approximately 200,000 square feet of area. The remainder of the site would consist of
14 residential landscaping and other pervious surfaces.
15 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
16 .following requirements are met.
17 ...
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
18 consistency with all of the following criteria
19
20
e. Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units, and external
21 privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual
22 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
23 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
24 height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy. Sufficient light and air are provided to
25 each dwelling unit.
26
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 II
22
23
24
25
26
15. The proposed development would be designed to building code standards for multi -family
construction. Each unit would have a separate interior entrance with insulated walls separating the
units. All units would have access to light and air,_ as each unit contains a balcony and windows.
BLDG. K and L along the east end of the property would also have views of the protected critical area
and wetlands and BULD. J, E, and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The
applicant has indicated the placement of the buildings, oriented to open space, provides separation
and privacy for the residents while maintaining a communal atmosphere. As noted in FOF No. 5(D),
landscaping and fencing will be used to screen residential development to the north.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
f. Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking
advantage of topography, building location and style.
16. The subject site is relatively flat and does not have a view corridor to Mt. Rainer and/or over a
valley etc. However, small more localized view opportunities exist on site. BLDG. K and L along the
east end of the property would have views of the protected critical area and wetlands and BLDG. J, E,
and B would have views of the large common open space areas. The overall orientation of the project
enhances local views taking advantage of the site's features.
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following requirements are met.
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
g. Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping and not
designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and
each area related to the group of buildings served. The design provides for efficient use of parking,
and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
17. The criterion is met as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(H).
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24
I
2
31
4
5
6
7
RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrate compliance with the
development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the underlying zone, and any
overlay districts;- unless- a -modification fora -specific development -standard -has- been requested
pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section.
18. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC
4-9-150(E). All requested development standard modifications requested through the PUD process
identified in FOF No. 3 are approved by this decision except for the requirement to retain trees in
critical areas. P. 7 of the staff report notes that except for the requested PUD modifications all RS -14
zoning standards are met by the proposal and there is no evidence or reasonable inference to the
8 11 contrary.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard: Open space shall be concentrated in large
usable areas and may be 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 equal at least ten percent (10%) of the
development site's gross land area.
i. Open space may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area buffer (only the square
footage of the trail shall be included in the open space area calculation), or
(b) A sidewalk and its associated landscape strip, when abutting the edge of a critical area buffer and
when apart of a new public or private road, or
(c) A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official.
ii. Additionally, a minimum area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit of common space or
recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figure 1.
19. The proposed project is located in the R-14 zone, which requires more common open space
than required by the PUD regulations. Pursuant to RMC 4-2-115(D), where there are conflicts
between the design regulations and other sections of RMC the regulations of RMC 4-2-115 shall
prevail. In addition, in times of conflict the more restrictive standard shall prevail. In both these
circumstances the standards of 4-2-115 prevail. Therefore the above standards would not be
applicable to the subject development proposal.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development
shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors)
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
for the exclusive use of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or
detached, shall have private open space which is contiguous to the unit. The private open space shall
be -well -demarcated -and at least fifteen feet (15) in every dimension (decks on upper floors can -
substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story
units, there shall be deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less
than five feet (5).
20. As mentioned in the preceding COL, R-14 standards are more restrictive than the PUD
standards therefore the requirements located in RMC section 4-2-115 shall prevail and the above
standards would not be applicable to the subject development. Pursuant to 4-2-115 Private Yards,
developments of attached dwelling units (other than townhomes) that do not provide private yards, an
additional 250 square feet per unit of open space shall be provided and this standard has been met as
determined in FOF No. 4(D). In addition, the applicant identifies that 9,720 square feet of the open
space is provided in the form of private open space as either ground floor patios or upper floor decks.
Based on this information, each private space is approximately 60 square feet. However, staff's
analysis of the provide floor plans, the decks more typically scale at 6 x 8 feet which is 48 square feet.
If one used a conservative estimate, and reduced the private open space to 48 square feet per unit the
overall open space in the development would still exceed the minimum requirement.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the 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.
21. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
a. Installation: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but
not limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities, etc., shall be completed by the
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
W
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...
22. As Conditioned.
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by
the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners'
association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a
responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for the
maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if
unpaid, shall become a lien against each individual property.
23. As conditioned.
RMC 4-9-065 [A bonus density of up to 4 du/acre may be allowed in the R-14 district if the
following criteria are met]: To qualify for the density bonus, the applicant shall provide either:
(i) Alley and/or rear access and parking for 50% of detached or townhouse units, or
(ii) Civic uses such as a community meeting hall, senior center, recreation center, or other similar
uses as determined by the Administrator, or
(iii) A minimum of 2 units of affordable housing per net developable acre (fractional results shall
be rounded up to the next whole number) to qualify for a density bonus.
In addition, in order to qualify for a bonus, developments shall also incorporate at least 1 of the
features described below:
(i) Active common recreation amenities such as sports courts, recreation center, pool, spa/jacuzzi.
(ii) Surface parking lots containing not more than 6 parking stalls separated from other parking
areas by landscaping with a minimum width of I5 feet.
24. The applicant has requested the maximum bonus density of 4/du per acre. The applicant has
partially met this requirement by providing for a recreational center that is available for public use.
The conditions of approval grant the applicant's request for the maximum density bonus to the extent
that the parking requirements of the criterion above can be met.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27
DECISION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The proposed preliminary PUD as identified in the application materials admitted as exhibits and
described in this decision is Approved, subject to the conditions below:
1. The 4 du/acre density bonus requested by the applicant is granted to the extent that the
applicant can maintain the amount of open space proposed in the Open Space
Recreation Public Benefit Program, Ex. 3 and also, as determined by staff, comply
with the parking lot clustering and landscape requirements of RMC 4-9-065 in
addition to any other requirements applicable to the project. If it is not possible to
maintain the proposed open space, the applicant shall reduce the number of parking
stalls by reducing the number of dwelling units to the extent necessary to achieve
compliance. Units shall first be removed from the tallest buildings of the proposal.
The amount of open space in Ex. 3 shall be based upon the correct area of space
depicted as determined by staff, as opposed to the numbers listed in the document that
both the applicant and City have claimed to be in error.
2. The Applicant shall comply with the ten mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated January 7, 2013.
3. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical reports
prepared for the project, Ex. 12 and 13, specifically including the setbacks
recommended for the coal mine hazard identified at p. 3 of Ex. 12, unless the
additional geotechnical analysis required by the MDNS recommends alternative
mitigation.
4. The Applicant shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
5. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of staff that the building materials
will reduce the potential for light and glare as contemplated by RMC 4-9-
150(D)(3)(a)(i).
6. The interpretive kiosk design and signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance.
7. In order to achieve public access to the wetland trail, signage shall be provided and an
easement shall be recorded memorializing the public access to the wetland trail. A
signage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval. The required public trail easement shall
be recorded on the property title prior to building permit final occupancy.
8. The wetland trail shall be re -designed to create a loop at the end similar to a "lasso' to
provide a turn around that acts like a loop. The updated trail design shall be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
9. All garage doors shall be designed with additional details, such as windows, and all
side of the building facing the public street and/or internal "street" provide a front door
or front porch presence, if this is not achievable an approved landscape screen would
be required between the sidewalk and the building. These required design
amendments shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to final PUD approval.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
10. BLDG J shall be re -designed to reduce the overall appearance of bulk with vertical
modulation similar to BLDG C and D, and provide additional variety in siding
materials and color. These required design amendments shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval
11. A water and sewer availability certificate would be required to be submitted with the
construction permit application.
12. The use of Tulip or Red Maple trees as street trees is prohibited. A different street tree
shall be proposed and included on the final landscape plan. The plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the City's Urban Forester and the Current Planning Project
Manager, prior to final PUD approval.
13. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan set identifying the location and screening
provided for roof mounted equipment, if proposed. The screening plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD
approval.
14. All refuse and recycling facilities shall be screened with landscaping on a minimum of
three sides. The final landscape screening plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
15. The long rows or parking shall be broken up by landscaped areas every 6 or 72 stalls,
to reduce the visual impact of surface parking throughout the development. The final
parking area landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
16. All drive aisle widths shall meet the minimum width standards required by the Renton
Municipal Code.
17. A detailed, colored coded, tree retention plan with associated retention worksheet and
arborist report shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. This detailed plan shall clarify which
trees are to be retained, dead and/or diseased, removed and eliminated as a part of the
wetland mitigation project. Additionally a narrative should be submitted explaining
what trees are included in the calculations and which trees are excluded and why, to
verify compliance with the tree retention standards.
18. The applicant shall provide a bicycle parking plan consistent with RMC 4-4-080F.11.c
to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to final PUD
approval.
19. Areas within the development that result in more than 14 surface parking stalls
(including surface tandem stalls) shall provide interior parking lot landscaping
consistent with the requirements of RMC 4-4-070H.5 which would at a minimum
require 15 square feet of landscaping per stall. The final parking area landscape plan
shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final
PUD approval.
2 Compliance with this standard is a PUD requirement separate from the bonus density requirement requiring
clustering of only up to six parking stalls.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29
1 20. The refuse and recycling stations in the south "dog leg" section and the facility located
along the north property line by BLDG K shall be relocated to meet the minimum 50-
2 foot separation standards. The new location shall be approved by the Current Planning
3 Project Manager to ensure minimal impact on residents and neighbors and so they are
not visible to the general public. An updated site plan identifying the new refuse and
4 recycling plans shall be provided for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
5 21. The applicant shall either relocate the refuse and recycling facility near BLDG M to
6 meet the 200 foot maximum distance standards for all buildings or an additional
facility within 200 feet of BLDG. M shall be provided. An updated site plan
7 identifying the new refuse and recycling plans shall be provided for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
8 22. The applicant shall provide a detailed utility screening plan for review and approval by
9 the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
23. The proposed site plan shall be modified to eliminate the parking stalls located in the
10 wetland buffers of Wetland A and Wetland B and be re -located outside the buffer
areas. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Current
11 Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
12 24. A split rail fence and critical area signage shall be provided along the edge of the
wetland and a gate shall be located at the trail entrance. An updated site plan shall be
13 provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
final PUD approval.
14 25. The final wetland creation plan shall include the placement of pieces of large wood
within the wetland and buffer to increase the buffer complexity and to provide habitat
15 features that currently do not exist within the area. The final wetland creation plan
16 shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final
PUD approval.
17 26. The wetlands and their buffers shall be placed in a Native Growth Protection
Easement, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
18 Manager prior to building permit issuance. The easement shall be recorded on the
19 property title prior to building permit occupancy.
27. All pathways shall be made of concrete or other material approved by the Current
20 Planning Project Manager. Material shall be identified and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager, prior to final PUD approval.
21 28. The pathways in Common Space 2 and 21, as identified in Exhibit 3 shall be realigned
22 and be provided at the edge of the green spaces to allow for a larger usable green area
in the center. An updated site plan shall be provided for review and approval by the
23 Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval.
29. Door materials shall be provided with the building permit application and be made of
24 either wood, fiberglass, metal, or glass and trimmed with 3 1/2 " minimum head and
jamb trim. Door design and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
25 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance.
26
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30
1
30.
2
3
4
5
31.
6
7
32.
8
9
33.
10
11
34.
12
13
35.
14
15
36.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
37
38.
The following buildings have sliding glass doors along a frontage elevation or an
elevation. BLDG. A, west elevation, BLDG. E, east elevation, BLDG. J, east
elevation, BLDG. K & L, west and east elevations, and BLDG.M, west elevation.
The sliding glass doors on the building elevations listed above shall be replaced with
either a French door or another door approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager. Updated elevations shall be provided for review and approval prior to final
PUD approval.
The applicant would be required to demonstrate multiple colors on buildings. A color
palette shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to final PUD approval.
All sidewalks and cross walks in the development shall be constructed with a different
material than the roadways, drive aisles and driveways. Material proposals shall be
provided for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
final PUD approval.
The applicant shall create bylaws or CC & R's that restrict parking across the
pedestrian pathways throughout the development. Final bylaws shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Renton Current Planning Project Manager, prior to building
permit final occupancy.
The applicant shall comply with the court order admitted as Exhibit 20, and as
amended in the future. Compliance shall be identified on plan sets for review and
approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, prior to Final PUD approval.
All requested PUD development standard modifications identified in FOF No. 3 are
approved except for the tree cutting and land clearing requirements of RMC 4-4-130
as identified in COL No. 4.
All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan submitted by the Applicant and approved by the City. 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. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to
requirements of RMC 4-4-070.
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.
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
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2013.
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) provides that the final decision of the Hearing Examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the Hearing Examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Hearing Examiner's decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32