Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEagle Ridge PUD, Preliminary Planned Urban DevelopmentJuly 12, 2010 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: APPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: Robert Hancheroff 17710 234`x' Ave SE Maple Valley, WA 98038 Chris Koruga Eagle Ridge, LLC 5454 301h Ave SW Seattle, WA 98126 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF 1600 Benson Road S Requesting approval of a Preliminary Planned Urban Development, for a mixed-use development including commercial and residential uses. Development Services Recommendation: Approve subject to conditions. The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on June 8, 2010. 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 June 15, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 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: Project file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit No. 6: South Building — East and South Elevations Exhibit No. 7: South Building — West and North Elevations Exhibit No. 8: North Building — East and South Elevations Exhibit No. 9: North Building — West and North Exhibit No. 10: South Building — Garage Floor Plan Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 2 Elevations Exhibit No. 11: South Building —First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 12: South Building — Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 13: South Building — Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 14: South Building — Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 15: South Building — Roof Plan Exhibit No. 16: North Building — Garage Floor Plan Exhibit No. 17: North Building — First Floor Plan Exhibit No. 18: North Building — Second Floor Plan Exhibit No. 19: North Building — Third Floor Plan Exhibit No. 20: North Building — Fourth Floor Plan Exhibit No. 21: North Building — Roof Plan Exhibit No. 22: Zoning Ma Exhibit No. 23: Map Showing, Olympic Pipe Line, PSE High Voltage Transmission Line, Sewer Easement, Existing Paved Access Road, and High Voltage Lines. Exhibit No. 24: Steep Slope Area Map Exhibit No. 25: Large Scale Map Showing Park Areas and Pedestrian Walkways Exhibit No. 26: Video of Actual Site The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Gerald Wasser Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development Department, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. This is a mixed use development. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 7 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The south building would consist of 61 residential units and 4,039 square feet of commercial offices. There would be 75 parking spaces total. Thirty-three would be in a garage, 42 would be surface spaces. The north building would consist of 56 residential units with 59 total parking spaces, 39 would be in a garage structure with the remaining as surface parking. Both buildings would have flat roofs and facade modulation on their east and west facades. The project is proposed to be completed in two phases, Phase One would include the construction of the south building and its parking area and common open space area. Phase Two would include the north building along with its parking and landscaping. The project is located on the east side of Benson Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this as a Commercial Corridor and is zoned Commercial Arterial. There is a Medical/Dental office building to the north, a Senior Apartment Complex is located to the east and an Apartment Complex is located to the northeast. The south building would be approximately 48 -feet in height and would contain both apartments and commercial space. The north building would contain apartments and parking only. The net density of the project is 56.52 du/ac. Both buildings would be developed with contemporary architecture. The various facade materials would include wood, stucco, cement and cedar siding. The garage level would have stamped or painted concrete with grillwork proposed as vertical bars. There are several man made protected slopes on this site. One steep slope area will not be disturbed. There are six others that were created during the building of the emergency access road and the construction of Benson Road South. Staff requested that the Hearing Examiner make recommendations as to modifications being made to the man made steep slope areas. Access to the site would be via Benson Road South. The intention for the development is to be pedestrian oriented, there are several common open areas that include picnic tables, benches, and gazebos. There are five-foot pedestrian walkways throughout the site. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 3 Several modifications were requested by the applicant; required location for residential parking, commercial parking spaces to be located outside the office areas, the north building would have no commercial units on the ground floor, slope modifications, compact parking spaces, and front building entrances. The Examiner questioned why all the parking was not being located in an underground garage, thus leaving more open space on the site. Some of the residential units would be assigned garage parking spaces and the rest would be outside parking. Mr. Wasser stated that the topography of the site does slope downward from east to west. There was concern about massing and the bulking of the building if those parking spaces were provided in a structured unit. The assigned parking would be in accord with the rental rates. The Examiner inquired as to access to the northeast corner of the north building. Mr. Wasser stated that there is access across the emergency access road. Circulation in that area would be through the garage structure with surface level parking to the north. The applicant has requested that 40% of the site become compact parking spaces. This is an effort to reduce the impervious area used by the surface parking lots. There are slope issues regarding the front of the buildings making it impossible to locate entrances towards the public street. The applicant has proposed to retain 40 of the 81 trees listed on the site. There would be a very good pedestrian circulation system throughout the project, there is landscaping and screening for the parking areas, there are landscape islands located within the parking areas, and there are wide planter beds that help soften the facades of the buildings. The refuse and recycling location and size were not specifically shown on the plan, that would be required and revised plans must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. The Examiner asked why this was a PUD versus using a straight site plan? There is more surface parking on a steep site requiring more grading on the site for parking areas rather than structured parking underneath the buildings, whether at grade level or subterranean. The roof treatment is flat rather than having peaks or gables, the roofs in the surrounding areas appear to have more interesting roof designs. Formal entrances for the buildings do not appear to be within the requirements. The south building seems to have only parking spaces at the entrance area. In order to approve a PUD there needs to be some benefits, which do not appear in what has been presented today. Mr. Wasser stated that there are items that are being thought of in regards to the site topography that may provide a superior design. The commercial area in the north building has not been provided to make the transition between the commercial and residential area of the neighborhood. If this were a normal CA zone this project could be up to 60 dwelling units per acre if the critical areas were man made and a modification was granted. If those steep slope areas that were man made were not deducted the net density would be closer to 43 dwelling units per net acre. Chris Koruga, 5454 30"' Avenue SW, Seattle 98126 stated that he was the managing partner of Eagle Ridge Apartment and Office LLC. He stated that he has built two other multi -family properties in the City of Renton. The PUD process is more complicated than a standard building permit process, the City of Renton staff has been exceptionally helpful in moving forward with this project. A brief description of the history of this parcel was given. Prior to making a final decision on the type of project to build they did a demographic study on the Senior Market in the City of Renton. They found that Renton projects a population of over 90,000 people with a median income of over $70,000.00 per year in the next several years. The need for affordable housing and affordable commercial space is growing. This proposal does comply with the needs as they have been forecast. The property to the south of this site is a PSE High Voltage Easement which most likely will never be developed as well as the Olympic Pipeline to the south. On the west side of Benson Road there is an RMF zone which has very steep topography and is also problematic, which may never be developed. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 4 The increase in the number of residences on this site would increase business for the dental offices, the Lodge would also benefit. The proposed north building would be a natural location for the provision of ADA accessible unit and independent units for seniors. The north building is in a much quieter location, commercial space would not fit into the topography. The access road was actually a required access road for the Dental building, they have rights to use that road for the purposes of this development. There is a significant amount of traffic that comes from the East Hill area, particularly the apartments located close by. There is no sidewalk between Eagle Ridge Drive and Benson Road. Creating an internal, pedestrian friendly system would create a safe pedestrian walkway for all adjoining areas. The recreation and rest areas would give people the ability to take a break and possibly do some exercises while walking in this particular area. He did present a video of the site showing the terrain and the area in the location of the proposed buildings. Open space requirements for this site are 5,800 square feet, the project proposes 52,000 square feet of open space. Some required by steep slope issues but over an acre of open space allows for amenities. John Minden, JM Architects, 1869 E Seltice Way, Ste. 336, Post Falls, ID 83854 stated that he saw no problems in meeting all recommendations presented by Staff. The reason for the surface parking and not having all the parking under the buildings is due to the slope of the site and trying to provide more affordable housing. If the parking were moved to underground the cost would escalate. With today's market affordable housing is much needed in the area. The area north of the north building is where the underground retention facility for drainage would be located. On the south end of the south building there would be an underground tank for surface water management. The Examiner inquired about how people would enter the buildings besides through the garage entrances. There were some questions as to guest parking as well. Mr. Minden stated that there needed to be a little more design on that, it was previously thought that through the garage would be the main entrances. They could develop an entrance around the south end of the building and include a pedestrian walkway along the south end of the building and enter along the east side. The guest parking would cover more of the surface parking, there are several areas of surface parking that guests would be encouraged to use. The north building might require more surface parking for the guests. Peaked roofs were discussed but it would be difficult to built peaked roofs due to the easement requirements from the Lodge to preserve their views. If peaked roofs were used, they could interfere with those views. Robert Hancheroff, 17710 234"' Avenue SE, Maple Valley 98038 stated that he is a partner in the Eagle Ridge LLC. The site has been his since the early 1980's. Currently the LLC has tried to develop the site with an impact that would benefit the surrounding residences and businesses. He originally developed the property for commercial use and foresaw that the commercial development would be dominant. However, it has been a struggle over the years to draw commercial business into this area. The lack of drive-by exposure tends to limit the commercial draw. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that she has visited the site and walked it extensively. As long as the access easement stays open, meaning no parking in that area, the Fire Marshall is good with the plan. It is a lengthy but very nice road and has good sight distance to it. It appears to have an access for utility use. The storm system will be by the 1995 Manual due to the age of this project. It is very appropriate that it is being split between two sections, it can be developed to whatever the building ends up being, if it needs to be larger, it won't constrain the site. The northerly vault is actually 100' from the pipeline. The easement on the north end will limit what can be done with the property. There is water, City of Renton serves both water and sewer at this location. There is one small glitch, the water service GPM for fire flow is rated at this point as 2500 GPM. The Fire Marshal when checking, registered 2,750 GPM. Between what can be done with the building and what the final design is like the Fire Marshal expects this number to come down and that they will be able to meet at the 2500 figure. Worse case, they may have to build some additional pipeline. There is no designated guest parking and that should be done. Guests cannot park on the access road and so parking needs to be very specific for guests. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 5 A short break was taken to set up the video equipment to view the video Mr. Koruga had taken of the site. The video showed the subject site, along Benson Road and the gradient along that roadway, the dental building to the north of the site and the natural area that would be reserved and serves as a stormwater pit for the dental building as well as the new buildings, a view from the north to the south showing the entry sign to the dental building. It also showed the flat plate where the north building would be situated. Very few trees would need to be removed. The various species of trees were seen in the video. 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 10:41 a.m. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Chris Koruga for Eagle Ridge, LLC, filed a request for a mixed use Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD). 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. 3. 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. 5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located at1600 Benson Road South. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Benson Road north of its intersection with Eagle Ridge Drive. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial). 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 5327 enacted in March 2008. 10. The subject site is approximately 2.89 acres or 125,708 square feet. The site is an irregularly shaped parcel with a large panhandle that extends north from its northeast corner. The subject site is approximately 260 feet wide by 670 feet long. 11. The subject site slopes downward toward Benson Road. It slopes downward from east to west approximately 40 to 50 feet from approximately 220 feet to 170 feet. The subject site contains two more level areas in the northeast and southwest corners of site. Some of the slopes are protected slopes which staff explained were created when grading for Benson Road occurred and also when an easement access that crosses the subject site was created for adjacent property. Initially staff believed that these protected slopes could be altered as part of the development process. It was determined that a Hearing Examiner issued modification from the slope protection provisions was required. Staff is to make a recommendation on that issue prior to this decision. 12. The site contains a total of 81 significant trees. Of those, 32 would be protected trees. The CA zone requires five percent or approximately 2 of those to be retained. The applicant has proposed retaining 40 trees. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site is located between two powerline corridors located generally north and south of the subject site. A gas pipeline is also located north of the subject site. 14. The area is a mix of uses including the dental clinic immediately north of the site. Apartments and a retirement complex are located to the east and west of the site with single family uses further to the east. 15. The applicant proposes developing two buildings and associated parking on the subject site. The buildings designated the North Building and the South Building would be located more or less on the opposite northeast and southwest corners of the subject site. Both buildings would be 4 -stories tall or approximately 48 feet tall. 16. The applicant proposes phasing the project into two phases. Phase 1 would consist of the South Building, the access roadway, common open space and landscaping materials. Phase 2 would finish the North Building and its allied landscaping and parking. 17. The North Building would be located on the panhandle portion of the site. It would house some parking underneath the building at ground level and additional surface/outdoor parking north of the building. The building is approximately 220 feet long by 100 feet wide. The building would be 71,716 gross square feet. It would contain 56 apartment units. The northerly building would have 39 structured and 20 surface parking spaces. The surface parking lot would be accessed by driving through the interior garage's parking aisle. The building would meet its requirements for parking categories including compact and handicapped or accessible parking. 18. The South Building would be similarly sized and would be approximately 200 feet long by 100 feet wide. It would contain 78,584 gross square feet. Commercial spaces totaling approximately 4,039 square feet would be located on the eastern facade at ground level. The commercial space would contain approximately 3 offices. The building would also contain 61 apartments in 4 -stories. The southerly building would have 33 structured parking spaces and 42 surface parking spaces. 19. Both buildings will share architectural features. The applicant plans to create contemporary craftsman -style exteriors offset or accented with cedar beams. The larger, prominent east and west facades would have bay windows and balconies spaced between 12 and 24 feet. The applicant would employ Stucco that would be used on the first and second floors and hardiplank or cementious board would provide a horizontal siding look to the third and fourth levels. The cedar trim would be used in belly bands, corner boards, trim and support beams. Staff noted that there were no distinguishing features on the north elevation of the South building nor on the south elevation of the north building and that these facades face public areas on the property. Staff recommended that the trim details or other exterior features be added to these facades. 20. The CA Zone requires commercial space be located in the lower level of any residential development in the CA zone. The applicant has asked for a modification of this requirement due to the site's topography. The applicant proposes commercial spaces in the South building but none in the North Building. The commercial component would be located along the eastern facade of the South Building. 21. Staff noted that the garage walls would be stamped or stained concrete materials but they recommended that the openings which are proposed to have vertical iron bar grating be replaced with a more decorative treatment. 22. Staff recommended that the internal walkways connect the buildings and connect to Benson Road. As proposed access to the northern building would be principally along the access driveway that runs through the building. Staff also recommended that the pedestrian walks be delineated by either raised profiles, texture or materials. 23. The CA zone permits a density range between 10 units per acre to a maximum of 60 units per acre. Density of this site would be based on the acreage less the access easement and critical slopes, 9,000 square feet and 26,454 square feet, respectively. The result is a net of 2.07 acres. The 117 unit project would have a density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre. 24. The applicant proposes retaining approximately 40 trees including some that would be in the critical areas. In addition, the applicant has proposed landscaping in larger beds surrounding the buildings including the west facade Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 7 of the south building and the north facade of the north building, and the areas facing the adjacent streets or properties. The surface parking lots would have perimeter screening. 25. The applicant will be providing sitting areas and a gazebo. Staff noted that the private open space required by code had not been provided to all units and recommended that the applicant comply with code provisions. 26. Access to the site would be provided by a driveway to Benson near the south end of the property and via an existing private easement (to the adjacent clinic) off of Eagle Ridge Drive. 27. The development will increase traffic approximately 7 trips per unit or approximately 700 to 800 trips for the complex. 28. Stormwater will be conveyed to City systems along Benson. There have been flooding problems downstream which the City hopes will be resolved by current improvement work on I-405. 29. Sewer and water service will be provided by the City. 30. Sections 4-9-150 provide the governing principles of a Planned Urban Development: "4-9-150 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, it is also the purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (Ord. 5153, 9-26-2005)" 31. As part of its PPUD request the applicant seeks the following modifications of code requirements to accommodate their proposed complex: REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS FROM RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE (RMC) RMC # Required per RMC Requested Modification RMC 4-2-12OA: Required Location for Parking for residential units shall be enclosed To provide 72 total structured Parking within the same building as the unit it serves. parking spaces for residents within the buildings in underground/ground floor parking garages and 62 surface parking spaces. RMC 4-2-080: Conditions Associated With Note 18. To allow stand alone residential Zoning Use Tables a. General Requirements: Subject to the for the North Building and ground density limits of the development standards floor residential for the North and for this zone and only permitted within a South Buildings. structure containing commercial uses on the Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 8 32. Staff reported that the requested modification to alter the man-made slopes created with the development of Benson Road and the easement road should be granted. The geotechnical report demonstrated the alteration would be appropriate and meets sound engineering guidelines. Such slopes are not necessarily permanently protected since they are not natural and they can be altered to allow gentler or safer grades. Planned Urban Development (PUD) 33. 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 ground floor. Commercial space must be reserved on the ground floor at a minimum of thirty feet (30') in depth along any street frontage. Residential uses shall not be located on the ground floor, except for a residential entry feature linking the residential portion of the development to the street. RMC 4-4-080F.8.c.iii: Maximum Number of Compact parking spaces shall not account for To allow up to 40 percent compact Compact Spaces Outside of the UC -N1 and more than: parking spaces. UC -N2 Zones ■ All other uses —not to exceed thirty percent (30%). RMC 4-3-050J.5b Protected Slopes- RMC 4-3-050J.5.a prohibits development on The grading of 5 protected slope Exceptions through Modification. protected slopes (40 % or greater). RMC 4-3- areas which were created either 050J.b. allows exceptions through for the construction of Benson modifications to the prohibition for filling Road S or the private access against the toe of natural rock wall or rock easement located onsite. wall, or protected slope created by natural resource recovery activities or public or private road installation or widening and related transportation improvements. Design District `D' Requested Modifications RMC 4-3-100E.2.a.ii The front entry of a building shall not be Front entry of buildings would be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public permitted to front parking areas. or private street or landscaped pedestrian - only court -yard RMC 4-3-100E.3.a.i A primary entrance of each building shall be The primary entrance of each located on the facade facing a prominent building would face the internal street, shall be prominent, visible from the drive aisle. street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. 32. Staff reported that the requested modification to alter the man-made slopes created with the development of Benson Road and the easement road should be granted. The geotechnical report demonstrated the alteration would be appropriate and meets sound engineering guidelines. Such slopes are not necessarily permanently protected since they are not natural and they can be altered to allow gentler or safer grades. Planned Urban Development (PUD) 33. 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 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 9 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 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. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 10 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) E DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 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 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 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. Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 11 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: I% of the lot area + I% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 12 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. (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. e. 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 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 13 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. 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) CONCLUSIONS: The proposal is a reasonably good plan for the use of any two acre site. But as a Planned Urban Development it is not highly imaginative and does not appear to embody the "innovation and creativity" enunciated in the PPUD regulations. Frankly, this office is not sure what gains are afforded by allowing the subject site to be developed as a PPUD as opposed to the normal Site Plan criteria. The site's location and topography do suggest that commercial spaces in the north building might be less successful and that modification appears reasonable. But the requested surface parking modification does not appear appropriate. Under the normal Site Plan Review criteria the applicant would be required to provide all of the parking within the two buildings. The two building, four-story design does not really offset the creation of surface parking. While the applicant might have split out the two buildings into more buildings, it is possible that they would have had less of a visual impact since they would have been smaller in scale. The applicant is developing 117 units at a density of 56.52 dwelling units per acre. That is only eight units less than might be developed on the subject site at maximum density. The most glaring aspect of the proposal is the large number of surface parking stalls - 62. In return for waiving the code mandated indoor parking the applicant is providing exactly what? They may be saving more trees but that is not altogether clear. Surface parking usurps approximately 11,100 square feet or a quarter of an acre of open space and provides asphalt surfaces. The applicant has taken advantage of the two main level areas of the site for its building pads. The applicant noted that providing completely enclosed parking would make it harder to provide affordable units. Obviously constructing structured or contained parking costs more money but surface parking for 62 vehicles is neither creative nor innovative. The applicant has proposed buildings with flat roofs rather than providing peaked or sloping roofs that provide more visible interest. The applicant noted that they were attempting to preserve views for the easterly neighbors. The fact Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 14 that both buildings almost achieve maximum density means that they are both tall buildings. Maximizing or nearly maximizing the density of the parcel compels the taller buildings and the flat roofline rather than compelling a creative or innovative project. 2. Again, Code specifically states: "A PURPOSES: There are two (2) principal purposes of the planned urban development regulations. First, it is the purpose of these regulations to preserve and protect natural features of the land. Second, it is also the purpose of these regulations to encourage innovation and creativity in the development of residential, business, manufacturing, or mixed use developments by permitting a variety in the type, design, and arrangement of structures and improvements. In order to accomplish these purposes, this Section is established to permit development which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision regulations when it is demonstrated that such new development will be superior to traditional development under standard regulations. In consideration of the latitude given and the absence of conventional restrictions, the reviewing agencies, Hearing Examiner, and City Council shall have wide discretionary authority in judging and approving or disapproving the innovations which may be incorporated into planned urban developments proposed under this Section. (emphasis supplied)." While the applicant has proposed some additional recreation space and landscaping, those features do not appear to adequately offset providing 62 surface parking stalls, particularly when such parking is normally to be entirely contained inside of the structure or structures. The applicant will be providing additional open space for each unit and common areas as well as pedestrian walkways and links to the surrounding sidewalks. The enhanced features proposed could be provided by a normal site plan, too. The applicant did suggest that contained parking is more costly and that would potentially affect the affordability of the units. That is a hard choice to make. But should the City abandon reasonable design standards intended to screen parking and move it indoors in order to potentially provide more affordable housing units? This office probably cannot make that determination which is why this recommendation to the City Council will suggest that the design be further analyzed by the City Council. This office believes that it would be appropriate to recommend that the City Council seek a more creative and innovative use of the subject site or more specifically a more creative and innovative project design. A design where the tradeoffs of developing a PPUD provide more tangible benefits rather than allow surface parking and less distinctive architecture. The flat rooflines and the surface parking are issues that need to be addressed. At the same time this recommendation will provide sufficient information to allow the City Council to approve the project as submitted and subject to the additional conditions suggested by Staff. 4. The design, while quite reasonable, seems to fall short of what a Planned Urban Development should or could be. That does not mean it is unacceptable but it does mean that it is certainly less than one would anticipate when deviating from the normal review standards. The applicant has placed the City in a Hobson's Choice. Either allow affordable development with reduced aesthetic qualities or perhaps force a better design but create less affordable living choices. The plan does protect trees providing a buffer for its residents and buffering others from its mass. But the plan does not really demonstrate "innovation and creativity" nor is it really "superior to traditional development." The PPUD does protect trees, provides outdoor seating areas and landscape massing in front of the two buildings. The applicant has worked with the topography of the site but has also allowed the topography to limit pedestrian circulation on the site and around the buildings. Neither building has a defined focal point for an entrance and the North Building completely lacks what might be called a front entrance. Staff had asked that these areas be better delineated and the applicant indicated that they would change some design elements. The applicant has indicated that the appropriate open space in the appropriate dimensions can be provided as required. As noted above, there is nothing particularly innovative or creative about placing two 4 -story, multifamily residential buildings on a parcel and surrounding them with sixty-two (62) surface parking stalls. That probably is the most disappointing aspect of this proposal. Site Plan review could have exacted architectural features and open space for residents and the parking would have been under or within the buildings. Be that as it may, if the Council Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 15 determines that the project is reasonable, then the design does work. The applicant has provided the required parking, although with a higher complement of compact stalls. The landscaping is definitely well-designed and tree preservation is part of the proposal. The longer facades of the two buildings have more than adequate architectural detailing that includes modulations in the form of bays and balconies. Different materials, textures and colors and trim will define the buildings' levels and corner elements. Again, the flat roof is not very characteristic of newer buildings or even neighboring buildings and pitched or peak roofs lend a more finished appearance to buildings and provide a more graceful skyline. The applicant should provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of the proposal. 6. The proposed slope modifications are appropriate whether the property is developed as a PPUD or under Site Plan provisions. If surface parking is not permitted, there might be a reduced need to alter some of the steeper slopes or portions of those slopes. 7. In conclusion, the proposal, if it were not submitted as a PPUD would be a reasonable project although, as noted, it would have been required to provide interior or contained parking. It is well -landscaped and the buildings have a reasonable facade treatment. The roofline whether a PPUD or a Site Plan is unimaginative and certainly lacks the creativity and innovation a PPUD should exhibit. Circulation for vehicles and pedestrians is reasonable and if staffs recommendations are adhered to, they would be more than adequate. The City Council should consider if this proposal has the merit of a PPUD but this office suggests the project could be improved as noted above. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should require the PPUD to be redesigned to incorporate fully structured parking and pitched or peaked roofs. In the alternative, if the City Council believes this project fulfills the goals and policies of creating an innovative and creative mixed use proposal they should approve the two-phase proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. Refuse and recyclables areas shall be dimensioned on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A detail of the refuse and recyclables areas must be submitted with the site plan indicating compliance with RMC 4-4-090. 2. The pedestrian walkway system shall be extended to provide connectivity to Benson Road S, between the North and South Buildings, and between the project site and the dental/medical office building to the north. This extended walkway system shall be indicated on the revised site plan submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All walkways/crosswalks within parking lots shall be differentiated by material or texture, such as raised and stamped concrete or raised and painted asphalt. Such walkways/crosswalks shall be indicated on the revised site submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. A Final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits that indicates expanded and enhanced landscaping using more trees in the area of the gazebo, benches and picnic tables. 5. Revised elevations for the south elevation of the North Building and the north elevation of the South Building showing architectural modulation similar to the east and west elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits which indicate that decorative ironwork would be used for ground level parking structure openings. 7. A revised site plan showing additional walkways and crosswalks to promote pedestrian safety throughout the site. Such walkways shall be shown to provide a connection to the dental/medical office building to the north, between passive recreation areas as well as providing crosswalks across surface Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 16 parking lots. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 8. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to utility construction that indicates pedestrian walkway, landscape, and building lighting. 9. A revised site plan and revised elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating that primary entries would have awnings or canopies and be identified with decorative paving and/or landscaping. 10. A rooftop mechanical equipment detail shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Revised floor plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits indicating compliance with the dimension and square footage requirements of the PUD decision criteria. 12. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD owner. 13. The applicant shall provide peaked or pitched roofs as part of this proposal. 14. The modification to allow grading of the steep slopes shall be submitted to the Planning Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 15. The applicant shall be required to designate five to ten stalls as guest parking. ORDERED THIS 12th day of July 2010. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 12th day of July 2010 to the following: 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 riled in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., ,July 26, 2010. 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 Eagle Ridge PUD File No.: LUA 09-150, PPUD, ECF July 12, 2010 Page 17 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., July 26, 2010. 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.