Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWilson Park II, Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban DevelopmentCIINOF RENTON 1 2 JUL 3 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE 4 5 6 7 8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 9 ) 10 Wilson Park II ) FINAL DECISION 11 Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban ) Development ) 12 ) LUA12-013, ECF, PP, PPUD 13 14 SUMMARY 15 16 The Applicants propose a preliminary plat to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten single-family residential lots and one tract for open space. A planned urban development ("PUD") is proposed in 17 order to modify minimum lot sizes and other development standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions. 18 TESTIMONY 19 20 Jennifer Henning, Renton Planning Manager, stated Wilson Park II is a preliminary plat and planned urban development located to the east of Talbot Rd S and north of S 55th Street. It is an 21 existing 2.15 acre site with split -zoning. A portion of the site is zoned R-14 which has a maximum of 14 dwelling units per acre, and another portion of the site is zoned R-1 which allows one dwelling 22 unit per acre. The site has an Urban Separator overlay present on an eastern portion of the site in 23 conjunction with steep slopes. The Applicants are proposing to create a subdivision of detached single family homes with 10 lots. The lots would range in size from 5,560 to 6,778 sq ft, and the site 24 would also include a tract set aside for open space and critical areas (Tract A) on the eastern portion of the site. Tract A would be 19,164 sq ft. which is roughly 20 percent of the site (correction to the 25 Staff Report which gives the coverage as 50 percent). The city zoning map notes the split zoning of 26 the site (a squiggly line marks the split area). A map of the site shows the protected slopes in bright orange and 39 or lower percent slopes in yellow. The site is shown with a dashed dark line and is PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 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 roughly square-shaped. South 55 Street is often called the "Snake Road" and is fairly steep. Upon questioning from the Hearing Examiner, Ms. Henning noted that a geo-tech report was done in 2004 by Mr. Carl Zing. Noting plate 2 of the 2004 geo-tech report, Ms. Henning stated that the west side of the site was analyzed in that report with a proposal for 4 lots. Exhibit 18 is a 2012 geo-tech report which supplements the 2004 report. Staff does not feel that the geo-tech reports addressing different lot proposals affect the overall conclusions. There are no streams or coal mine hazards that affect the site. There are some steep slopes on the extreme northwest corner of the site and off-site to the west. The presence of the slopes resulted in the city creating the Urban Separator overlay designation. She noted that, in most areas, an Urban Separator will follow the property lines. However, this site's separator (the Talbot Urban Separator) follows topography lines rather than parcel and zoning lines. Recently, the Talbot Urban Separator language has been clarified to say that half of the area in the Urban Separator has to be used as open space (instead of half the whole parcel as is the case for other separators). She concluded that the developable part of the site is a moderate slope. In regards to averaging the density, Ms. Hennings stated that if Staff looked at the R-14 zone on its own (with the road taken out) about 1 acre would be left. This would allow for 14 units (which could be duplexes, triplexes, etc.). In the R-1 portion of the site, there could still only be 1 dwelling unit. Thus, if the density was calculated in the original way, there could be up to 15 lots. Staff suggested using the PUD process to look at applying different standards to the entire parcel. Staff decided to average the density across the site (without exceeding the density of one part of the site vs. the other) using an administrative code interpretation. Ms. Hennings testified that Exhibit 2 shows the proposal, including the 10 lots, Tract A, and a central road (Road A). Staff recommends that a covenant be included in the approval that restricts the Applicants to only building detached single-family homes. In Exhibit 2, the R-14 zone is the light brown color while R-1 zone is the green color. Lot 5, 8, and 9 would be split -zoned parcels. Staff is recommending that the plat subscribe to the R-8 zoning standards which are a residential single family (RSF) designation. Regardless, the plat meets policies of multiple land -use possibilities being considered. The R-14 designation is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) while R-1 is in Residential Low Density (RLD) standard. R-8 is within the RSF designation. The site is served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. The certificate of water availability became available on June 12th, 2012. The site will also use facilities being built for the Wilson Park I site which has already been approved. The Wilson Park I site will provide 26 ft. of paving for road, 2-5ft. sidewalks, and a landscape strip. Parking will be allowed on the east side of the street. Exhibit 11 depicts the landscape plan with the road in the center. The landscape is shown in green and the road in brown. A walking path, which is a public benefit, will be provided around lot 6. It is a hard - surface path that will lead into the planned gazebo area. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. Staff is concerned that the split -rail fence will not provide enough security for future residents and will result in residents building additional fences. Staff is working with the Applicants to find a better solution PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2 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 fencing problem. Staff also asks that the walking path be moved out of the boundaries of Lot 10. There is no design yet for the gazebo, but it is contained in a 350 sq ft area. The Applicants is possibly going to expand this recreation area to the Wilson Park I recreation area to the north. Staff believes that circulation beyond the walking path is necessary for safety and convenience. The nearest bus stop is 700 ft. away. Staff recommends a condition that there be a walking path along S 55th St. for kids to safely reach the bus stop. Ms. Hennings stated that the project went through a SEPA review and has a number of conditions that must be met as a result of that review. Staff provided a table within the Staff Report that describes what the standards for the two residential zones are, and the required modifications necessary for the proposal to meet the R-8 standards. The lots meet the minimum size standards of the R-8 zone and all meet the width requirements except for Lot 1. The R-8 standard currently allows 15ft from the garage face to the back sidewalk; however, Staff is recommending 18ft from the back of the garage to the back of the sidewalk for a parking apron area. This is especially necessary because there is limited guest parking. All the setbacks for the rear -yard, design standards, and maximum building coverage work best with the R-8 standard. Staff believes the R-8 standard applied creates a superior plat because of the more uniform lots and homes, more open space and recreation areas. The plan also protects the steep slopes more because it protects a greater area than what would be required under other zone areas. Exhibit 9 shows the steep slope area with the plan and demonstrates that approximately a third more area is protected under the R-8 zone plan. Ms. Hennings explained that the City of Renton does not require recreational areas on site because it prefers applicants to pay into the City's park mitigation fund. The proposal, under R-8 zone standards, will require a footpath to the school bus -stop and the recreational walking path. The Applicants are paying the full park impact fee, traffic fee, fire fee, and school impact fee. Staff suggested additional common amenities such as barbecues or fireplaces. There are currently 82 trees on the site, and 21 of the trees will be removed because they are in the section where the public streets will be built (Exhibit 9). There are three trees in the critical areas and buffers which don't count. This leaves 58 trees to consider for zoning standards. Zoning requirements state that 10 trees on-site will have to be retained. The Applicants are proposing to retain the necessary 10 trees and will be adding at least 2 trees per lot. Additional landscape enhancements will be added along the back of the lots. Staff is also asking additional trees be planted along the south side of Lot 1 because of car traffic along that area. A variety of tree types and plant forms will be utilized. Ms. Hennings testified that the homes will be subject to the City's residential design standards. No floor plans or elevations are available at this time. No alley is needed because of the limited space. Staff is recommending an 8 -ft wide landscape strip be included along the south side of Lot 1. The Applicants would also be required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalks and a landscape strip along the extreme eastside of the site which has frontage on S 55th St. The Applicants are not opposed to providing these additional facilities. No lighting plan was provided as part of the proposal. The lighting plan would be needed later in the process. Ms. Hennings noted that the code does not require lighting along the walking path at night. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 In regard to the emergency vehicle service, Staff is concerned that if Wilson Park I is not constructed there will be no place for the vehicles to turn -around. Staff stated that if Wilson Park I is not constructed first (or at all) an emergency turnaround will need to be provided. A stormwater vault was proposed as part of Wilson Park I (Exhibit 13, shown in blue) which would be sufficient to handle any run-off. Additionally, the Applicants are proposing a covenant to limit the amount of pervious surface on each lot. The City provides fire and sewer service. In regard to the plat application, Ms. Hennings noted that Staff believes all of the lots are appropriately sized with suitable orientations except for Lot 1. Staff asks that Lot 1's width be changed because it is a corner lot. All access topography seemed to be fitting and no disruption to other properties was evident. Staff asks that Tract A be placed in a native -growth protection area easement. Staff is recommending that the preliminary plat and PUD be approved, subject to the 18 conditions presented in the Staff Report. Jim Hanson, 17446 Ballard Cove's Lane, stated that the Applicants agree the R-8 standards should apply. The Applicants have no objection to the 18ft garage -sidewalk standard change. The PUD process requires the Applicants to provide the open -space and recreation areas that would not be required with the normal R-1 zone. In areas where there is no critical slope, the Applicants are clearing invasive species and enhancing the landscape rather than just leaving it as over -growth. The Applicants believe this type of development is a better transition from the R-14 zone to the R-8 zone to the north and to the R-4 zones to the east and south. Rather than having townhouses and duplexes, the Applicants feel 10 single-family homes are more appropriate. The previous proposals (from 2004) had higher density levels (but fewer lots). Upon questioning by the Hearing Examiner, Mr. Hanson noted that the Applicants had not discussed lighting the pedestrian pathway. He noted that it is a wildlife corridor, and the path is not intended for night use. Darrell Offe, Offe Engineers, stated that the 2004 geo-tech report was done for a different property owner. The previous owner only looked at the west side of the property because he believed the entire east side was sensitive areas. The current Applicants have added the east side to the site plans. The Applicants have worked with Staff to establish the 25 percent Urban Separator line as the designation between the R-1 and the R-14. Soos Creek is the purveyor of the water and Renton is the purveyor of the sewer. The 2005 drainage manual (used for Wilson Park I and 2) requires that the detention facility be sized to accommodate 85 percent pervious surface per lot. The code allows the Applicants to restrict themselves to a lower impervious level and lessen the treatment it has to provide. The stormwater facility planned for Wilson Park I will include Wilson Park II along with the restrictive covenants. The Applicants ask that under Condition 8 (which asks for a walking path to the nearest bus stop on 55"' Street), the wording be changed to just say the nearest bus stop. This change is in hope that a new bus stop closer to the site can be created. Ms. Henning's noted that the City has no objections to this change of Condition 8. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 Jim Hanson noted that the timing for the PUD expiration is different for the plat expiration. Plats are valid for 9 years while PUDs are only valid for 5 years. The Applicants ask that the expiration of the PUD be increased to 9 years. Jennifer Hennings noted, if the plat was developed under the R-8 standards, the Applicants could build up to 13 lots. Instead, the Applicants are proposing ten lots. If the R-1 and R-14 density standards were used, up to 15 lots could be built with a density of 9.16 per acre. Under the current proposal, there are 6.4 units per acre. EXHIBITS The June 12, 2012 Staff Report in addition to Exhibits 1-21 identified in pages 2-3 of the Staff Report were admitted into the record at the June 12, 2012 hearing. 10 Procedural: 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Applicants. Robert and Doravin Wilson. 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on June 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The Applicants request preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 2.15 acre parcel into ten lots for single-family homes at a proposed density of 6.4 dwelling units per acre. An open space tract is included in the subdivision. The preliminary application is accompanied by a PUD application requesting deviations to R-1 and R-14 zoning standards, as outlined in Table A of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. All lots will have access to a public street, Road A. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The R-1 Zone comprises 38,326 square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R-14 portion of the site is 55,474 square feet. Proposed density averages 6.4 dwelling units per acre across the site, with nine lots proposed in the R-14 area and one lot proposed within the R -l. Access would be provided from South 55th Street via a new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. The site contains 9,783 square feet of slopes with greater than 40% grade. A small hydrologically isolated, unregulated wetland is located on the western portion of the site. An underground stormwater vault was previously approved for Wilson Park I to be within the roadway on the subject site. The vault is being revised to accommodate the additional stormwater generated by the proposal. A hard -surface walking path leading into a planned gazebo area will be provided as PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 well as will a soft surface, 3 -foot wide walking path around Lot 6-10. There are street trees being proposed along with trees in the open fence area. A split -rail fence is proposed for the back of the lots. A portion of the site is subject to the Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. That portion of the site zoned R-1 is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC 4-3-110(E)(2)(a)(ii), 50% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The Applicants propose to retain 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the site as open space within Tract A. The application includes a proposal for a planned unit development in order to modify minimum lot size and development standards for both the R-1 and R-14 designations. Proposed lots would range in size from 5,560 square feet to 6,778 square feet. 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 the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water availability certificate was issued by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District on June 12, 2012, according to Staff testimony. Based on the submitted Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit 13), there is an existing sewer main located in 55th Avenue South. The Applicants have proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an 8 -inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to the development. This plan sheet also identifies an 8 -inch water line extension from 55th Avenue South through the subject plat and to the Wilson Park I plat located to the north. With receipt of the water availability certificate, the development would provide sufficient service to the lots. B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department. 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 Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage Report") and Addendum with the project application (Exhibit 21). The original stormwater system for Wilson Park I is located within the street that would serve both Wilson Park I and II. This system was sized to accommodate Wilson Park I lots and the new streets including the access street located within this project, Wilson Park II. The Addendum provides calculations intended to evaluate the sizing of the storm treatment PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 6 I 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 facility for the two projects and demonstrates that the facility as revised for Wilson Park H is sufficient to accommodate both Wilson Park I and Wilson Park IL The City of Renton's 2009 Drainage Manual requires Best Management Practices (BMP's) for new developments. One BMP's is to restrict impervious areas on future lots to help reduce runoff, mitigate for development, and minimize the treatment system needed for the project. This is known as a "Restrictive Covenant" provision and was utilized as part of a preliminary sizing of the future system for both Wilson Park I and H. The Applicants intend to utilize the Restrictive Covenant provision and limit impervious surface on each of the new lots in both Wilson Park I and II to 3,300 square feet per lot. By limiting the impervious area for homes, patios, driveways and walkways, the proposed stormwater vault will be of an appropriate size to accommodate both developments. The Applicants have also intended to develop both plats at the same time. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. The proposed development is located on a 2.15 acre site. The eastern portion of the site is located in a steep slope critical area. The site contains geotechnical hazards in the form of slopes greater than 40% covering 38,326 sq. ft. within the Talbot Urban Separator. Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 50% of the area of the site located within the Talbot Urban Separator as a non -revocable open space tract. Additionally, the City critical areas regulations provide for protection of steep slopes. RMC 4-9-150(E) requires PUDs to provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The Staff Report notes that the proposed development increases these protections by protecting the steep slope within a tract that would also serve as the common open space and recreation area. The project proposes to set aside 19,164 square feet, or 50% of the Talbot Urban Separator area in Open Space Tract A. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq.ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 sq. ft. A 510 lineal foot (1,530 sq. ft.) looped trail provided on the flat area of Tract A would separate five of the new lots from the steep slope area. The open space tract would also connect to a comparable open space tract on Wilson Park I that was set aside to address requirements of the Urban Separator Overlay Regulations (RMC4-3-110E, 2.a.ii). The Applicants have proposed to provide an approximately 350 sq. ft. common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and landscaping. The conditions of approval require the proposed development provide 500 sq. ft. of common space or recreation area to meet the 50 sq. ft. required by PUD regulations for each of the ten lots. The proposed park is located along the perimeters of proposed Lots 6-10 and connects to the walking path through the remainder of Tract A. The conditions of approval require that the section PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 on the south side of Lot 10 be revised to meander and not abut the edge of the split rail fence. As conditioned, the overall location and design of the park, open space and trail will create quality open space and recreation areas for the development. Private open space will be provided on each lot through the yard setbacks and limitations in pervious surface. Staff further recommends that a minimum setback of 18 feet be required from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. This increased setback would also increase the yard space for each lot. The overall passive and active recreation opportunities proposed for the subject development are beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed open space and recreation on the site provide the opportunity for both passive and active recreation. The park area provides for both passive and active recreation by offering both a gazebo/pergola and hard and soft surface trails. The varieties of recreation opportunities proposed throughout the development and in conjunction with Wilson Park I create a mix of choices, appealing to a large spectrum of people. The split -rail fence or pergola/gazebo designs are not reflected on the Landscape Plan or the Plat Plan. The conditions of approval require the Applicants provide a detail of the proposed pergola/gazebo and fence design and location as a part of the final detailed landscape plan. These details shall be submitted and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposed preliminary plat provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation system. In addition to the proposed soft surface pedestrian path, discussed above, the Applicants have proposed sidewalks along both sides of Road A consistent with the residential character of the development. As discussed below, pedestrian linkage to the nearest school bus stop is also required. This network of pathways and sidewalks provides for a pedestrian network that ties the residential development to recreational areas and schools. It is unclear from the record whether there are any commercial areas or public transit stops within walking distance; nonetheless the linkage to adjoining sidewalks provides all the linkage that can reasonably be required of the Applicants. As conditioned, pedestrian safety is assured through adequate separation of pathways from motor vehicles and adequate lighting. The conditions of approval require pedestrian separation along South 55th Street with an 8 -foot planter strip. Another 8 -foot planter strip is required along the "inside" of Road A. Furthermore, the pedestrian looped trail PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 would provide another means for pedestrian movement throughout the development maintaining sufficient separation from vehicles. A lighting plan was not included in the Applicants' submittal packet; therefore, it is not clear how the proposed pedestrian pathways would be illuminated at night. Although, the soft surface trail should not be lit at night as this may cause additional impacts to open space area, the remainder of the hard surfaced pedestrian pathway and recreation areas should be lit. As a condition of approval, the Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to utility construction. The lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping lighting, if proposed. Comments received from surrounding property owners concern the ability of children to safely access a school bus stop (Exhibit 14). The Applicants have observed that presently school buses travel east on South 55th Street in the morning, stopping in South 55th Street to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South 55th to drop-off students. While it was originally anticipated that this practice would continue with the project, and that children would wait together for pick-up, an inquiry to the Renton School District (RSD) revealed that these are actually Kent School District buses, which do not serve the subject plat. RSD does not operate on South 55th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 700 feet to the west to be picked up at the corner of South 55th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval request a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path from the entrance to the plat to the nearest school bus stop that serves the subdivision. This should be installed at the time that street and utility improvements are being installed. F. Interior Vehicle Circulation. In addition to sidewalks and the proposed pedestrian path, the proposed preliminary plat also provides for appropriate vehicle circulation system. The road system connects with the Wilson Park I Plat located immediately to the north. The road was originally approved as part of Wilson Park I and has not yet been constructed. Wilson Park I is dependent upon the construction of this road, as is Wilson Park II. The internal street is designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic generated by the project, provided that the street connects through Wilson Park I. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed concurrent or prior to Wilson Park II, an emergency turnaround would need to be provided within the subject plat. The conditions of approval require that if Wilson Park II moves forward prior to Wilson Park I, the public street be constructed with an approved emergency turnaround. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 9 1 2 Access to the property should not adversely affect adjoining properties and there are no difficult turning patterns. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside 3 of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and 4 west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Previously, the site distance on South 55th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the 5 City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and 6 west directions would be met. 7 As shown in Ex. 2, the internal road does not traverse any steep gradients and there is no 8 driveway access to any busy streets as there is no driveway access to South 55th Street. 9 G. Off -Site Traffic Improvements. Frontage improvements are required along South 55th 10 Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed internal Road A intersects South 55th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South 55th Street. 11 In both cases, the Applicants are required to construct curb, gutter, 5-foot wide sidewalks, 12 and an 8-foot wide planting strip. The Applicants' proposal indicates a 5-foot wide sidewalk along South 55th Street on the south side of Lot 1. No planting strip is proposed 13 within the South 55th Street right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed within 14 the right-of-way for South 55th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street 15 (Exhibit 2, 11). The conditions of approval require revision of the construction engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan to show the required street 16 improvements and landscaping prior to the Final PUD and Final Plat approval process. 17 The Applicants submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit 12) prepared by 18 TraffEx. The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South 19 55th Street as the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South 55th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South 55th Street to optimize sight distance 20 in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report 21 also indicates that the horizon year for the study is 2014, as this is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study determined the Level-of-Service (LOS) with the 22 project will be LOS B for future 2014 conditions. This LOS satisfies the City's LOS 23 standard and there is no evidence in the record that is contrary to the conclusions of the traffic report on LOS impacts. The project design will ensure intersection and stopping 24 sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions will be met. The report 25 has been presumably approved by staff, since it has gone through staff review and Staff have recommended all the conditions of approval they deemed necessary for adequate 26 traffic mitigation in the environmental report. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 10 1 2 The Renton School District (RSD) does not operate on South 55th Street. The closest school bus stop is approximately 700 feet to the west at the corner of South 55th Street 3 and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the 4 conditions of approval require a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path to the nearest school bus stop as determined safe by City 5 staff. This should be installed concurrent with street and utility improvements. 6 5. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, 7 the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critical areas. All impacts to critical areas have been thoroughly assessed and completely mitigated, as identified in the Environmental Review 8 Report, Ex. 4-6, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The mitigation measures 9 recommended by Staff in the Environmental Report are adopted as conditions of approval via adoption of the mitigation measures of the determination of nonsignificance. Adoption of Ex. 6 10 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. 11 A. Trees. Loss of trees is an impact that Renton regulations require mitigated. As conditioned, 12 the project will retain trees as required by City standards, although it must be noted that the Staff Report erroneously only requires protection of trees with of a 6 -inch caliper or greater 13 whereas it appears that City standards require trees of a 2 -inch caliper or greater to be protected. The Staff Report notes that the site contains a total of 82 trees of 6 -inch caliper or 14 larger, 21 are within the proposed public right-of-way, and 3 are located in critical areas and 15 their buffers resulting in 58 protected trees on site (Exhibit 9, 10). Of these, 21 trees are within the R-1 zone, and 37 trees within the R-14 zoned portions of the property. The R-1 16 zone requires 30 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R-14 requires 10 percent tree retention. At a 30 percent retention rate in the R-1 zone, 6 trees of greater than 17 6 -inch caliper would be required to be retained. At 10 percent retention rate in the R-14 zone, 4 trees of greater than 6 -inch would need to be retained. This is a total of 10 trees of greater 18 than 6 -inch caliper required to be retained. The Applicants have identified 10 trees that would 19 be retained thus meeting the requirement for trees of greater than 6 -inch caliper. In addition, the Applicants propose to plant 40 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the 20 right-of-way and ornamental trees within Tract `A', the common open space and Native Growth Protection Area Easement. As noted in the conclusions of law, Renton tree retention 21 standards require the protection of 2 -inch caliper trees, not 6 -inch trees as suggested in the 22 Staff Report. The conditions of approval will require that the tree retention requirements be applied to trees that are of 2 -inch caliper or greater. 23 B. Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. Perimeter screening will ensure compatibility and 24 minimize aesthetic impacts. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would 25 provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed 26 from 55th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way is required as a PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 11 1 2 3 4 5i 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PI -11 21 22 23 24 25 26 condition of approval along 55th Avenue South. This requires dedication of additional right- of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. The PUD revision authorizing R-8 design standards also contributes to compatibility, as many adjoining uses are also zoned R-8. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated. 6. Superiority in Design. The proposed PUD design is superior to that which would be allowed under applicable subdivision regulations. This fording is based upon Staff's assessment and conclusions. Unfortunately, the record does not directly provide much information on how staff came to its conclusions on superiority in design, but given the Staff's expertise and the lack of any evidence to the contrary the staff conclusions are adopted. At page 11, the Staff Report notes several reasons why the design is superior, but does not link these reasons to any specific design features. First, the Staff Report notes that proposed plat layout provides for the protection of the steep slope area to the east. Given that the PUD proposes that 50% of the open space of the urban separator designation be set aside for open space and that the same would be required for a subdivision anyway, it is difficult to understand from the record how the PUD protection of the steep slopes is superior to that which would already be required for a subdivision. The Staff Report also notes that the PUD exceeds open space requirements by placing the steep slopes within the open space tract. While the placement of the steep slopes within the open space tract is technically not required, it is difficult to conceive of any set of circumstances for this subdivision where the developer would have any incentive to reduce his developable space by placing the open space away from the steep slopes. The PUD design does provide for a trail along the steep slope that provides separation from five lots beyond that required by the City's critical areas ordinance. Given the amount of open space required already, the trail separation does not appear to be a major improvement over what would be required of a subdivision. Second, the Staff Report notes that as conditioned the PUD would provide for recreational amenities beyond code requirements. Elsewhere, the Staff Report notes that the open space will include a pergola, landscaping, two picnic tables and a soft surface trail system. These are presumably all amenities that exceed code standards and thus support a finding of superior design. Third, the Staff Report notes that the plat layout increases the quality of the internal circulation system throughout the development. This in part appears to be accomplished by an internal pathway that connects the sidewalks of the subdivision. It is not otherwise clear from the record how the quality of internal circulation has been enhanced by the proposed PUD. Fourth, the Staff Report notes that the proposed subdivision is a significant improvement over a design that would meet both the R-1 and R-14 standards. The Staff Report notes that proposed design can provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the development standard modifications recommended by Staff in the Staff Report Table A. The Staff Report does not identify how the modifications result in superior design. A primary design enhancement from the PUD PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 12 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 modifications appears to be conformance to the residential design standards of the R-8 zone as conditioned, which apparently provides for stricter design guidelines in some respects than that required of the R-1 or R-14 zone, promotes compatibility of design between the interior R-1 and R-14 districts (although there is only one lot in the R-1 zone) and also provides for greater compatibility in design with adjoining R-8 uses. The requested lot size and setback modifications allow for a clustered R-8 development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. The reduced density applied from the R-8 zone further contributes to this openness. In order to maintain sufficient separation between buildings, the conditions of approval require the Applicants to meet the R-8 side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 10 feet of separation. This spacing allows for emergency access and sufficient fire separation. Aesthetics and parking is further enhanced by a condition requiring garage setbacks that exceed those of the R-8 district by three feet. 7. Public Benefit. The proposal provides several public benefits as detailed in Table B of the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full with the caveat that, as previously discussed, the PUD does not appear to provide for more open space than would otherwise already be required for a standard subdivision subject to the Urban Separator designation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-7-020(C) and 4-7-050(D)(5) provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R-14 and R-1. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the R-14 Zone is Residential Single Family (RSF) while the R -I Zone is Residential Low Density (RLD). 3. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review and RMC 4-9-150 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter 4-7 and RMC 4-9-150 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 13 I 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. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because offlood, inundation, or wetland Conditions. Construction ofprotective improvements may be required as a Condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 4. As modified by the PUD regulations, the lots will comply with all requirements of the Zoning Code. As noted in the project description, Finding of Fact No. 3, and as depicted in Ex. 2, all lots have access to a public street, Road A. The project is not located within a floodplain and there are no wetlands or streams impacted. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): ...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards... 5. The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section 6(a) of the Staff Report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 6. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to South 55th Street, an existing public street. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 7. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any applicable street plan or grid system that would compel the connection of the interior streets to any other roads beyond South 55th Street. The aerial photo on page 2 of the Staff Report shows that there are no other roads in proximity to the project that could be feasibly extended to the project. Given the extreme slopes that adjoin the project it is highly unlikely that any other roads could ever connect to the project from the east. The project is separated from a cul de sac to the northwest by residential development. The project is slated to be connected to Wilson Park I's internal road to the north of the subject property. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 14 1 8. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the 2 vicinity. 3 RMC 4-7-130(0): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 4 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes 5 land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as 6 lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department 7 or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse Conditions. 8 a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is 9 subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State 10 according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. 11 b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a 12 lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (4001o) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 13 050J1 a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be 14 approved. 15 - 16 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 17 9. As determined in the Findings of Fact, significant protective measures and safeguards are 18 proposed and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from the 19 geologic hazards of the site. As proposed and conditioned the project area is appropriate for subdivision. As previously discussed there is no evidence in the record that there is any flooding 20 problem. 21 The property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 40%. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. 5 and 22 6, no lots will be created that are unsuitable for subdivision. The entire slope area will be placed in an 23 open space tract (Tract A). The conditions of approval will require the tract to be placed in a Native Protection Area Easement. 24 In assessing compliance with RMC 4-4-130, the Staff Report only identifies trees on site that are of 6- 25 inch caliper or larger. There is nothing in RMC 4-4-130 that limits tree retention to trees that of 6- 26 inch caliper or higher. RMC 4-11-200 defines a tree as having a caliper of 2 inches or higher and the PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 tree retention requirements of RMC 4-4-130 do not provide for any exceptions for trees smaller than six inches. It is possible that trees between two and six inches are not present on the site, but that's not clear from the record and it would not be reasonable to make that inference. In addition to the additional information recommended by Staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the Conditions of approval will also require that tree retention be applied to all trees with a two inch caliper or greater. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi- family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider's dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 10. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(D), the proposal meets both park and open space requirements. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 11. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7, the only street that the project could connect to is South 55th Street. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. If South 55th Street qualifies as an arterial, the project must by necessity connect to it or it would otherwise only have one access point, through Wilson Park I. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125) are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 16 0 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 14. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(G). RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T -A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD -Mand Policies CD -50 and CD -60. 3. Exceptions: a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a `flexible grid" by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not -feasible... 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul -de -Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 15. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no roads other than South 55h Street and the Wilson Park I internal road with which the project could connect. No grid system is reasonably feasible because existing development and the steep slopes to the east make any additional thru streets impractical. Alley access is infeasible. Topography would make it difficult to configure the plat to allow for alley access of all lots. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 16. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full -width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 17. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 7 there are no feasible street connections to the project other than directly to South 55th Street and the Wilson Park I plat as proposed. 4-7-160(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where: 1. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, including size and shape of the parcel. 3. Prior to approval of single -tier lot configuration based on exceptions I and 2, the proponent must demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible. 18. The steep slopes and the shape of the parcel could not accommodate two tiers of lots. 4-7-160(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of the block at locations deemed necessary. Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. 19. As identified in Finding of Fact 4(E) sidewalks meeting the City's standards will extend along both sides of Road A. There will also be a looped interior trail system. Proposed Road A does not appear to warrant crosswalks due to its short length, but investigation of this issue by staff will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 20. As depicted in Ex. 2, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 18 I -N E" 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 21. Each lot will have access to Road A, which the Staff Report states, when completed, will be a dedicated public road. RMC 4-7-170(0): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then -current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 22. The proposed plat results in less than allowable density in the R-14 portion of the lot and the allowable density in the R-1 portion of the lot. As noted in Table A and Table C of the Staff Report, the lot size, width and design will not meet the minimum requirements of the R-1 and R-14 districts. Staff recommends the most appropriate zoning standards for this development conform to the R-8 Zone and the deviations approved under the PUD are in line with this recommendation. Any deviations from minimum lot dimensions authorized by this decision are based upon compliance with PUD criteria of RMC 4-9-150. For purposes of RMC 4-7-170(C), deviations approved by the PUD standards should be considered to be consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning classification. As conditioned, the project will be required to conform to the R-8 Zone development standards. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20) and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35). 23. The "required lot width" for this project has been reduced by operation of the PUD standards, RMC 4-9-150. As reduced and described in Table C of the Staff Report, the lot widths for each lot are fairly consistent and the foremost lot lines are all at least 80% of lot width. However, proposed Lot 1 has less than the required 60 foot frontage. As modified through the PUD, the criterion is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15). 24. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 19 1 2 3 4' 5 61 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RMC 4-7-190(A): Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 25. No utility easements were found necessary by the Department. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 26. As conditioned, protected trees shall be retained or replaced as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5 and Conclusion of Law No. 9. The steep slopes will be protected by the City's critical areas ordinance as well as the open space tract as discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4(D). RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8) into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 27. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 28. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(C), the proposal complies with the criterion above. The Staff Report does not identify whether the project will comply with RMC 4-6-030 so compliance will be made a condition of approval. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 29. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 20 1 2 3 4 5 Co 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 30. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 31. As Conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SUR FEY.- All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 32. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modified. a. In approving a planned urban development, the City may modify any of the standards of chapter 4- 2 RMC, chapter 4-4 RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter 4-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 21 1 33. As shown in Table A of the Staff Report, the requested revisions are limited to the regulations 2 identified in the regulation quoted above. 3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the following requirements are met. 4 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superiority Required: Applicants must demonstrate that a 5 proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive 6 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 7 properties. 8 34. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150, are to preserve and protect 9 the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity in development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 6 the natural features (the steep slope) of 10 the site are protected by open space and an internal trail. The consolidation of the open space 11 requirement with critical area protection, recreational use and the internal trail system involves innovation and creativity. The use of R-8 zoning design standards to promote compatibility within 12 the two zoning designations of the project in addition to surrounding uses is also innovative and 13 creative. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which 14 would occur without a PUD. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create 15 any significant adverse impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties. 16 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the 17 following requirements are met. 18 2. Public Benefit Required: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development 19 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 20 impacts to surrounding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of 21 the following benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned urban development: 22 a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the same 23 degree as without a planned urban development; or 24 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area 25 wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City regulations; or... 26 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 22 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 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:... 35. The proposal provides for public benefit as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. As previously concluded, the proposal also provides for more protection of steep slopes than otherwise required by the placement of the slopes in a significant amount of open space and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the PUD provides for a design superior to that which would otherwise be required. 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: i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along the planned urban developmentperimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare. 36. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 10 would provide some screening of when viewed from South 55th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot 1 would provide some incremental screening for Lot 1 when viewed from 55th Avenue South. The conditions of approval require additional planting within the right-of-way along 55th Avenue South. This would require dedication of additional right-of-way along the south boundary of the plat, between the new Road A west to the southwest corner of the site. As conditioned, the scale, mass, character and architectural design along the perimeter will be of a detached single family residential development consistent with R-8 zoning This creates compatibility with both the interior split zoning and surrounding single-family development. 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: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 23 1 2 3 4 5 rel 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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, townhouses, flats, etc. 37. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the interior site design promotes quality pedestrian circulation, increased critical area protection, and promotes safety by buffering the high landslide hazards. All homes would be required to comply with the R-8 development design standards which would result in coordinated, yet varied roof styles and materials, architectural detailing, and a variety of home styles throughout the development. 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 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. 38. The criterion above is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), (F) and (G). 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 b. Circulation: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 24 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 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. 39. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), the criterion above 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 b. Circulation: iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit, public walkways, schools, and commercial activities. 40. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 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 b. Circulation: iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles. 41. As conditioned and as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(F), 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 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. 42. 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. 43. An appearance of openness is created by clustering, open space and conditions requiring building separation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. 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 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 26 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 44. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal is adequately screened from adjoining development. Within the subdivision, unit to unit privacy would be provided by the side yard setback requirement. Street trees are required either within the required landscape strip or in the front yard of the lot. The required trees would add to the privacy for lots across Road A. As discussed in Finding of Fact Nos. 4(D) and 6, the proposed walkways and landscaping are appropriate for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property. All homes would be required to be designed to meet the residential design standards for the R-8 zone. These standards would require windows on the front of the home, increasing access to light and air for each dwelling unit. Furthermore, each lot would have private front, side and rear yards, enhancing each lot with landscaping and access to light and air. 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. 45. The lots are arranged on either side of Road A. The site topography slopes down from south to north, resulting in a tiered housing effect after site grading. The relatively small amount of new housing and the large effect of the topography provide little opportunity for enhanced views from within the site. Given the site grading and required building styles, this 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 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 27 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 46, Required parking would be provided within garages attached to each home. Additional guest parking would be provided on the driveway aprons for each lot, particularly given the condition of approval that requires an additional 3 feet of setback for garages. On -street parking would be provided along the east side of Road A. The proposed parking is designed to provide efficient use of the site and would be appropriately screen by the provided garages. 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 for a specific development standard has been requested pursuant to subsection B2 of this Section. 47. As discussed below, the proposal complies with all development standards imposed by RMC 4-9-150(E). As previously mentioned, Staff has recommended that the entire site be subject to the development standards of the R-8 zone. The current zones are R-14 and R-1. Only one dwelling unit is proposed for the R-1 zone portion. Nine are proposed for the R-14 zone. The total gross zoning is proposed to be 6.4, well less than the density required for R-8 zone that Staff recommends. As depicted in the plat maps, Ex. 2, the lots comply with the bulk and dimensional requirements of the underlying zone except to the extent modified by the PUD regulations. 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. 48. In addition to private open space provided on each proposed lot, the Applicants have proposed to provide a passive recreation area primarily located on the eastern portion of the site, and wrapping around the north part of Lot 6 and the south boundary of Lot 10. This 19,164 sq. ft. (0.44 acre) open PRELIMINARY PLAT AND 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 space would include a pergola structure, landscaping and two picnic tables, a soft surface looped trail system through the development, and would also comprise the steep slope area beyond to the north and east. RMC 4-9-150E requires that PUD's provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 10% of the site's gross area. The site is 93,801 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is 19,164 sq. ft, comprising approximately 20% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by 9,784 square feet. The overall location and design of the park, open space and trail are located as to create a quality open space/recreation area for the development, specifically if all conditions of approval are met. 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) 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 (59. 49. Each lot would have a private yard in both the front and the rear of the lot. The minimum side yard setback in the requested R-8 zoning development standards is five feet, which could result in a private open space yard that is less than 15 feet in every dimension. However, the lots sizes are large enough to meet this standard. As a condition of approval, compliance with this standard shall be required at the building permit stage. 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 Applicants 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. 50. As Conditioned. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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 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... 51. As Conditioned. RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities: 120 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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. 52. As a condition of approval, the Applicants are required to establish a home owners' association for the development, which would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and park within the PUD prior to Final PUD approval. All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. RMC 4-9-150(B)(3)(d): The City may not modify any of the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to, fees, submittal requirements, and other similar provisions found in chapters 4-1, 4-7, 4-8 and 4-9 RMC. 53. The Applicant has requested the Examiner grant an extension of the PUD expiration period to nine years to match the plat expiration period. The Examiner is specifically prohibited from modifying the procedural provisions of RMC Title 4 including RMC 4-9-150(G)(1) Final Plat Review Procedures: Time Limits. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD are APPROVED. Requested revisions to development standards are approved to the extent recommended by Staff in Table A of the Staff Report. The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 30 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 1. The Applicants shall comply with the seven mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non -Significance Mitigated, dated May 7, 2012. 2. The Applicants shall place a restrictive covenant on each of the lots indicating that only detached single family units may be constructed, and any future accessory units allowed per the R-8 Development Regulations. This covenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to the recording of the Final Plat. 3. The final PUD application shall reflect the minimum dimensional requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. Specifically, Lot 1 must be a minimum of 60 feet in width with a minimum 15 foot side yard setback along the street in order to conform to the R-8 standards for corner lots. 4. The final PUD application shall reflect the maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage requirements for each lot in conformance with the standards of the R- 8 Zone, except where proposed to exceed those requirements. 5. The final PUD application shall reflect a minimum setback of 18 feet from the face of the garage to the back of the sidewalk to allow an appropriate area for parking. Additionally, parking may be allowed on the east side of Road A. No Parking signs shall be installed on the west side, prior to final plat recording. 6. The final PUD application shall reflect the five foot setback from Tract A and the pedestrian path within an easement. 7. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which include lot width variation of a minimum ten feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots, or a minimum of four lot sizes (minimum 400 sq. ft. size difference), or a front yard setback variation of at least five feet for one of each four abutting street fronting lots. 8. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential and open space requirements in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a recess for the garage of at least 8 feet from the front of the house, or an extension of the roof of at least 5 feet, or a design that locates the entry away from a public and/or private street or access easement, or such that the width of the garage is no greater than 50% of the front facade at ground level, and that the portion wider than 26 feet wide is set back at least 2 feet. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 31 1 2 3 4 W1 G'l 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 9. The final PUD application shall reflect the scale, bulk and character standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone, which require a variety of elevations and models. 10. The final PUD application shall reflect the residential design standards in conformance with the standards of the R-8 Zone. 11. The Applicants must record a Native Growth Protection Area Easement over Tract A including all critical areas and their buffers. The Applicants shall establish and record a permanent and irrevocable easement on the property title for all critical areas and their buffers prior to Final Plat recording. The protective easement shall be held by current and future property owners; shall run with the land; and shall prohibit development, alteration, and disturbance within the easement except for the purposes of habitat enhancement as a part of an enhancement project, access for the trail users and maintenance, and debris flow mitigation access for landslide events. The NGPE shall be subject to the review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney, and shall be recorded prior to recording of the Final Plat. 12. The Applicants shall submit a detailed and revised final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Specifically, the final landscape plan shall include, but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed locations and design details of the pergola/gazebo, split -rail fence and interpretive signage proposed along the soft surface trail. b. Street trees shall be identified within the right-of-way in compliance with the City's street tree standards. c. The plan shall indicate either 100 percent drought tolerant plantings or the applicant shall provide a final irrigation plan with the final detailed landscape plan. d. Provide a revised Landscape Plan indicating a Common Recreation area that is a minimum of 500 square feet that includes improvements providing for recreation by the public and area residents e. Redesign the trail on the south side of Lot 10 such that the trail meanders and is not abutting the edge of the split rail fence on Lot 10. f. Tree retention shall protect all trees with a 2 -inch or more caliper. 13. The Applicants shall submit detailed and revised construction engineering plans and final landscape plan for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 32 I final PUD approval. Specifically, the plans shall reflect the design and construction of 2 curb, gutter, 5 -foot wide sidewalks and an 8 -foot wide planting strip along the proposed street intersection of Road A and South 55th Street and along the portion of Tract A that 3 fronts South 55th Street. Another 8 -foot planning strip is required along the inside of Road 4 A. 5 14. In order to facilitate children walking to and from the school bus stop, the construction engineering plans and final detailed landscape plan must reflect the addition of an asphalt 6 walking path from the entrance of the development to the nearest Renton School District 7 bus stop location. These improvements must be constructed within the improved right of way, with a minimum 5 -foot asphalt path separated from the traffic lane by C -curb. These 8 improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by 9 the Engineering Plan Review Project Manager prior to final PUD approval. Installation of the improvements must be concurrent with related street and utility improvements 10 consequent of the project. 11 15. The Applicants shall submit a lighting plan for review and approval by the Current 12 Planning Project Manager at the time of the construction permit application submittal. The 13 lighting plan shall reflect illumination of the hard surface portions of the trail and gazebo/pergola area and either minimal or no lighting of the soft surface trail at night. The 14 lighting plan shall contain pedestrian lighting in addition to building and landscaping 15 lighting if proposed. 16 16. A street lighting plan shall be submitted with the construction permit application for 17 review and approval by the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit approval. 18 17. In the event that Wilson Park I is not constructed prior to the beginning of construction for Wilson Park II, the construction engineering plans shall be revised to reflect the 19 construction of an approved emergency turnaround in the public street (Road A). These 20 improvements shall be shown on the final PUD application, and reviewed and approved by the Development Services Project Manager and the Fire Marshal prior to final PUD 21 approval. 22 18. The Applicants shall establish a home owners' association for the development, which 23 would be responsible for any common improvements, including but not limited to the soft surface trail, landscaping, and common recreational facilities within the PUD. The draft 24 CCR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney, prior to final PUD approval. 25 All common facilities, not dedicated to the City, shall be permanently maintained by the PUD home owners' association. The CCR's shall provide that any covenants required by 26 the City may not be amended without City approval. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 33 1 19. A covenant shall be placed on all tracts restricting their separate sale and giving each lot 2 owner within the plat an undivided interest in the tracts. This covenant should be recorded on the face of the plat, and/or concurrent with the plat recording, noting the recording 3 number on the plat. 4 20. The Applicants shall provide the Current Planning Project Manager, a water line 5 installation plan, which complies with RMC 4-3-050L.8.b.i.(b) for review and approval, prior to final PUD approval. 6 7 21. The common boundary between the native growth protection tract and the abutting land must be permanently identified. This identification shall include a permanent wood split 8 rail fence and metal signs on treated or metal posts. The permanent wood split rail fence 9 and signs shall be installed prior to Final Plat recording. 10 22. The following note shall appear on the face of the Final Plat and shall also be recorded as a covenant running with the land on the title of record for all affected lots on the title: 11 "MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: All owners of lots created or benefitting from this 12 City action abutting or including a native growth protection tract are responsible for maintenance and protection of the tract. Maintenance includes ensuring that no alterations 13 occur within the tract and that all vegetation remains undisturbed unless the express written 14 authorization of the City has been received." 15 23. All proposed street names shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City prior to 16 final plat approval. 17 24. All subdivision streets shall comply with the street standards of RMC 4-6-060 as contemplated in RMC 4-7-150(D). 18 25. All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including 19 streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 20 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the 21 Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 22 26. Road A as depicted in Ex. 2 shall be dedicated to the public. 23 27. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet (15') as contemplated by RMC 4-7-170(E). 24 28. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in 25 accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each 26 lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 34 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 29. As contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(B), cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full -width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6- 030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. 30. The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements as contemplated in RMC 4-7-200(C). 31. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department of Community and Economic Development. 32. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 33. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department of Community and Economic Development. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. 34. The applicant shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 35. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-150(E)(2) for each lot prior to and as a requirement for building permit issuance. 36. Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-4-070. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 35 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 37. 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 applicant 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. 38. 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. 39. If circumstances warrant, staff shall require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (6) in width dedicated to the City to extend entirely across the width of Road A at locations deemed necessary as required by RMC 4-7-160(B). Such crosswalks or walkways shall be paved for their entire width and length with a permanent surface and shall be adequately lighted at the developer's cost. DATED this 5h day of July, 2012. Plil 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 PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 36 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 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 37