Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmerald Highlands Final Decision - LUA-20-0000771 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Emerald Highlands Until Lot Subdivision Preliminary Plat, Unit Lot Subdivision, administrative site plan, administrative conditional use and street modification. PR20-000100 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting approvals of preliminary plat, unit lot subdivision, site plan, conditional use, and street modification applications for 10 townhomes to be located at 1509/1507and 1503/1501 Kirkland Ave NE. The applications are approved subject to conditions, although the requested street modification request has been revised as recommended by staff with the concurrence of the Applicant. TESTIMONY Note: The following is a summary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only and should not be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this summary is not reflective of the priority or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to accuracy. Angela Weihs, associate City of Renton planner, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Jonathon Chavez, Renton engineer, was not able to find an 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 2 approved copy of the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan to help explain its regulatory significance. He noted that the north to south alleyway was subject to public dedication while the east-west alley was not because the north-south alley will be extended both to the north and south as part of the City’s road network. The east-west alley is only temporary and provides more localized access. He noted that a turn-around at the end of the north-south alley was not necessary due to the fire access available along Kirkland Ave. The project isn’t subject to any street plans or designated tails in the area. James Howton, Applicant, went over his efforts to comply with all staff recommended conditions of approval as detailed in Ex. 25. He noted he didn’t agree with the requirement in staff recommended condition No. 4, which requires the open space tract to be 30 feet wide. Mr. Howton asserted that the 30-foot requirement was not required by applicable open space standards, that the standard only applied 20-foot width. Vanessa Dolbee, Renton planning manager, found that Mr. Howton’s proposed open space complied with the currently applicable 30-foot open space requirement because it was at least 30 feet long. Her interpretation of the currently applicable ordinance was that it required a 30-foot dimension, but it didn’t have to be the width. Mr. Dolbee found compliance because the proposed open space was more than 30 feet long. Mr. Howton stated that when the project was first reviewed staff was asking for five fire hydrants and that was later reduced to three fire hydrants. Mr. Howton asked the examiner to review the fire department comments to verify this reduction. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Howton stated he had no objection to the staff recommended revisions to the street modification so long as it matched the Jefferson Highlands street section. EXHIBITS The 20 exhibits identified at Page 2 of the May 26, 2020 Staff report were admitted into the record at the May 26, 2020 hearing. City of Renton COR maps were admitted as Exhibit 21. Google maps for the project vicinity were admitted as Ex. 22. The staff power point presentation was admitted as Ex. 23. An email exchange between staff and the examiner dated May 21, 2020 clarifying the staff’s street modification analysis was admitted as Ex 24. Applicant responses to conditions of approval, landscape plan and arborist plan were collectively admitted as Ex. 25. Ordinance 5966 plus the affidavit of publication was admitted as Ex. 271. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Owner/Applicant. Genesis Homes, LLC, 16220 NE 3rd Place, Bellevue, WA 98008. Contact: James W. Howton, 4621 123rd Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98006. 1 No document was admitted as Ex. 26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 3 2. Hearing. A hearing on the application was held on May 26, 2020 at 11:00 am on-line via the Zoom meeting application, Meeting ID 823 3977 2602. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting approvals of preliminary plat, unit lot subdivision, site plan, conditional use, and street modification applications for 10 townhomes located at 1509/1507and 1503/1501 Kirkland Ave NE. The proposal involves demolishing two existing duplexes to construct two (2) new townhome buildings, each with five (5) units. The project site is 24,360 square feet in area. The Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to increase maximum wall plat height up to 32 feet to allow for a third floor within the residences. The proposed project would result in a net density of 17.8 du/ac. The Unit Lot Subdivision is proposed to be subdivided into 10 lots and two (2) tracts. One of the 10 units would be affordable under density bonus review. The proposed unit lots would range in size from 1,240 sf to 1,947 sf. Access to the units is proposed via a new public alley behind the units and a 16-foot wide temporary private alley along the north end of the site from Kirkland Ave NE (8 feet of the temporary access is located off - site to the north). The topography of the site is relatively flat and the site is not mapped with any critical areas. There are four (4) significant trees identified on-site, one of which the Applicant is proposing to retain. The street modification requested by the Applicant is to purportedly reduce the amount of street improvements required for road frontage along Kirkland Avenue. However, the end result has been staff using the modification process to increase the street frontage requirements for the project with the Applicant’s concurrence. The Applicant’s request for the modification came about from staff comments at a pre-application meeting that appeared to require frontage improvements that would result in the need for 3.5 feet of right of way dedication. In order to avoid the need for this dedication, the Applicant asked for a reduction in the travel lane and planter strip width requested by staff. Staff subsequently clarified that the frontage improvements they requested would not necessitate any additional right of way dedication, but that the planter strip they were requesting exceeded minimum code standards and approval of the modification was necessary for the extra planter strip width. The Applicant agreed to the modification revision as requested by staff, with the understanding that there would be no need for additional dedication. The increase in planter dedication was important to staff, since with the added width the planter strip could serve as a bioretention strip, as required by the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. The 11.5-foot planter strip would also be the same width as the planter strip on the adjoining development to the north, which is also used as a bioretention strip as required by the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. The details of the evolution of the street modification request are as follows: • The pre-application report for the project stated the following frontage requirements were required: To meet the City's complete street standards and the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan for Kirkland Ave NE, a residential access street, half street improvements shall 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 4 include a pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, a 12-foot bioretention planter strip, a 8-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. No ROW dedication is required along Kirkland Ave NE. • It is uncontested that there is only 30 feet of right of way width available for the half street improvements. In its modification request, Ex. 18, the Applicant noted that the improvements required by staff as quoted above added up to 33.5 feet. Consequently, the Applicant proposed the following improvements as an alternative in its modification request: • 11’ travel lane measured from the center of the existing 60’ wide right of way. (30’ half right of way width) • 0.5’ vertical curb, 10' bioretention planter strip, and 8’ sidewalk, with 0.5’ clear width from back of sidewalk to edge of right of way. • According to the staff report, Kirkland Ave NE qualifies as a Residential Access street under RMC 4-6-060F2. For residential access streets, RMC 4-6-060F2 requires two 10- foot-wide paved travel lanes, 8-foot planter strips, 5-foot sidewalks and 53 feet of right of way. • Page 30 of the staff report notes that Kirkland Ave. NE qualifies as a “Green Street” under the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan and that to meet both the Green Street standards and RMC 4-6-060F2, the frontage improvements would have to include “a pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, a 12-foot bioretention planter strip, a 8-foot sidewalk, street trees and storm drainage improvements.” • Instead of accepting the Applicant’s request for modification, Page 30 of the staff report recommends that the modification request be configured as 28 feet paved width, 0.5-foot curb, 11.5-foot rain garden, 5-foot sidewalk, and 1-foot of clear space at back of walk, street trees and storm drainage improvements. • In pre-hearing email correspondence on the modification request, Ex. 24, staff clarified that its recommendation would not result in the need for additional right of way dedication, since the road is not centered in the right-of-way. Due to the current alignment in the right-of-way, half street improvements from the right-of-way centerline for this project would actually be: 12’ of pavement width, .5’ curb, 11.5’ bioretention, 5’ sidewalk, and 1’ clear space at back of walk, totaling 30 feet and not 33.5 feet as feared by the Applicant. Staff further clarified that the modification alternative it is recommending is a 3.5-foot increase to the planter strip to meet the bioretention requirements for the Green Street standard. The staff recommendation would approximately conform to the Green Street standard and would also be consistent with the half-street improvements to the north. At hearing, the Applicant did not object to the staff recommendation. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 5 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service are provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 10-inch City water main located in Kirkland Ave NE that can deliver a maximum total flow capacity of 2,500 gpm. There is an existing 8-inch concrete gravity wastewater main located in Kirkland Ave NE. B. Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire Authority and police service by the Renton Police Department. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development subject to the condition that the Applicant install required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, currently assessed at $964.53 per dwelling unit, would be applicable to the proposal. The fee in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance would be assessed for this project. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts and provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater facilities. Public works staff have reviewed the Applicant’s preliminary drainage design and found it to conform to the City’s design standards. The drainage standards require off- site stormwater flows to be at or less in volume and velocity than predevelopment conditions. The Applicant is proposing a combination of full infiltration trenches and a Biopod system to provide the required stormwater controls for water quality and flow control. These would overflow into the existing storm system in Kirkland Ave NE. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. RMC 4-2- 115E.2 requires open space for residential development of four or more dwelling units in the R-14 zone to consist of at least 350 square feet of open space per dwelling unit. Based on the proposal for 10 townhome units, a total of 3,500 square feet of common open space would be required. To provide this open space, the Applicant proposes Tract B, which contains 4,305 square feet of open space, which meets this requirement. RMC 4-2-115E.2 further requires that all common open space areas shall be designed to accommodate both active and passive recreational opportunities. The common open space, as proposed, is broken up repeatedly by sidewalks connecting each unit to the public street, which consequentially interrupts the common open space and prevents active recreational uses. In addition, the code requires that open space shall include picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate. The project proposal does not include picnic areas or other recreational activities. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant revise the proposed pedestrian connections to limit the interruption within the common open space tract. The revisions shall also include and show required picnic areas, 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 6 space for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within the common open space for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit. E. Pedestrian Circulation. The townhome units would provide pedestrian connections from rights-of-ways to each unit through the common open space. The proposed concrete sidewalks would provide a safe and efficient pedestrian circulation system, provided all conditions of approval are met. F. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation infrastructure. The proposed project includes the following improvements: a shared temporary access driveway along the north property line and a new north/south 16-foot wide alley along the west property line, behind the units. Only the 16-foot wide alley behind the units would be required to be dedicated as public right-of-way. The shared temporary driveway (also 16- feet wide) would be permitted as an access easement. Eight feet of the temporary access driveway would be located off-site to the north on parcel no. 7227801485. The shared temporary access driveway (access easement) would connect the public alley to Kirkland Ave NE at the northeast corner of the parcel. Together, the proposed shared temporary access driveway and public alley would function as roadway access for all lots. The project fronts Kirkland Avenue. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the proposal will comply with the design standards applicable to Kirkland Avenue and the required planter strip will be increased by 3.5 feet to conform to the recommendations of the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan to the frontage improvements on adjoining development to the north. The proposed project passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6- 070.D (Exhibit 17). Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees. The current rate of transportation impact fee is assessed at $7,820.42 per dwelling. Payment of the transportation impact fee is applicable on the construction of the development at the time of application for the building permit. A credit would be given for any existing homes. Access to SR 900 (NE Sunset Blvd) is approximately a quarter of a mile to the south. An active bus stop is located adjacent to the Greater Highlands Shopping Center located at 2806 NE Sunset Blvd. This stop is a very active bus stop and should the Greater Highlands 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 7 Shopping Center redevelop, King County Metro Transit could potentially convert this bus stop into a major RapidRide station. G. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate schools. Sierra Heights Elementary, McKnight Middle School and Hazen High School serve the site. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their elementary and high schools and would walk to the middle school. The stop for Sierra Heights Elementary School is located at the corner of Kirkland Ave NE @ NE 15th St. Students attending McKnight Middle School would walk to school, approximately 0.4 miles from the project site. Students would walk north along the existing sidewalks on Kirkland Ave NE and west along NE 16th St where they would reach the school at the southwest corner of NE 16th St and Harrington Ave NE. The bus stop for students attending Hazen High School is located at the corner of NE 16th St and Kirkland Ave NE. The proposed project includes the installation of frontage improvements along Kirkland Ave NE frontage, including sidewalks. A school impact fee, based on new single-family lots, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $3,582.00 per multi family dwelling unit. H. Parking. Staff has determined that the proposal complies with applicable parking regulations. The proposal is subject to two separate motor vehicle parking standards – one applicable to townhomes specifically and the other to attached dwelling units. The more restrictive of the two requires two parking spaces per townhome involving more than one bedroom. See RMC 4-4-080(10)(d). The Applicant has proposed two (2) car garages within each unit lot, which would meet the minimum parking requirements for each unit lot. Bicycle parking regulations require that a minimum of one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space be provided per one attached dwelling. For attached dwellings, spaces within the dwelling units or on balconies do not count toward the bicycle parking requirement. However, designated bicycle parking spaces within individual garages can count toward the minimum requirement. Based on the proposal for 10 townhome units, a total of five (5) bicycle parking spaces are required. No bicycle parking is referenced on the site plan, ar chitectural elevations or the unit floor plan (Exhibits 2 and 7). Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit revised plans with the building permit application identifying the location of code compliant bicycle parking meeting the standards of RMC 4- 4-080.F.11, and identify a minimum of five (5) bicycle parking stalls. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 8 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows: A. Critical Areas. The Applicant’s geotechnical report and SEPA review finds no critical areas on-site. B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is consistent with the City’s tree retention standards. The City’s tree retention standards (RMC 4-4-130) require the retention of 20 percent (20%) of trees in a residential development. An arborist report, prepared by landscape architect, Jeff Varley, was submitted with the land use application (Exhibit 6). The arborist report identified four (4) on-site trees (greater than 6 caliper inches) on the subject property and three (3) off-site trees. The trees located on and around the site were inventoried as follows: Tree #1 cedar, Tree #2 cedar, Tree #3 Douglas fir, Tree #4 unknown (dead), Tree #5 cedar, Tree #6 elm, and Tree #7 spruce. Trees numbered 2, 3, and 5 are located off-site to the west. Trees numbered 1, 4, 6, and 7 are located on-site. Three (3) of the four (4) on-site significant trees were found to be healthy, and one (1) on- site tree (tree number 4) was found to be non-viable. Certain trees are excluded from retention calculations, including dangerous trees, trees in proposed public streets, trees in proposed private access easements/tracts, and trees in critical areas and critical area buffers. Following deductions, the Applicant would be required to retain one (1) tree on- site. One (1) on-site tree was determined to be non-viable (dead). Two trees, including the dead tree, are located in the proposed public street/alley. The Applicant is proposing to retain one (1) on-site significant tree on the project site; however the proposed retained tree is located within the required public alley ROW dedication, and therefore cannot count towards tree retention requirements. Other on-site trees are located within the proposed footprint of the new structures. Per RMC 4-4-130H.1.e, when the required number of protected trees cannot be retained, replacement trees, with at least a two-inch (2") caliper or an evergreen at least six feet (6') tall, shall be planted at a rate of twelve (12) caliper inches of new trees to replace each protected tree removed. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that demonstrates compliance with minimum tree replacement planting requirements at the time of civil construction permit application. A final detailed landscape plan would be required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a civil construction permit. It appears the alley construction may impact the root zone of offsite trees to the west. A condition of approval requires that all off-site trees shall either be protected during construction pursuant to the City tree protection standards, or an arborist shall provide a report that construction impacts would not result in damage to the offsite trees creating an unsafe situation, or the Applicant shall receive permission from the property owner to remove the trees to complete the construction. Furthermore, if the tress are removed from 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 9 the neighboring properties the Applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the 20% tree retention rate or re-planting requirements. C. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed townhomes along Kirkland Ave NE include increased front yard setbacks from the public street, which tends to reduce the bulk and scale of buildings. In addition, RMF and CV zoned properties are located across the street to the east of the project site. Adjoining the property to the north is a 13-unit lot townhome development constructed by the Applicant. A duplex adjoins the property to the south. The project site is located in an area that is characterized by single-family and multi-family development and is evolving and transitioning from less intense single-family and duplex uses to more intense commercial and mixed-uses. The proposed townhomes are consistent with the anticipated transition. The proposal also serves as a good transitional use to the R14 zones in the north, south and west in terms of bulk and scaled due to its proximity to the more intense uses in the RMF and CV zones to the east. The City’s landscaping standards assure further aesthetic compatibility with surrounding uses. The Applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscape and Tree Retention Plan, prepared by Lane & Associates (Exhibit 5) with the project application materials that staff have determined complies with the City’s landscaping standards. Landscaping and open space is proposed throughout the site in areas not occupied by buildings or paving. As shown in the Ex. 5 landscaping plan, landscaping is proposed around all of the proposed buildings, obscuring or augmenting building views. An 11.5-foot-wide bioretention planter strip is proposed between the curb and sidewalk along the Kirkland Ave NE frontage. All units are proposed to face Kirkland Ave NE, with a proposed open space tract (Tract B) located between the unit lots and the public street. Proposed landscape planters would include the planting of six (6) street trees (Linden) and lawn areas. A 10-foot onsite landscape strip along Kirkland Ave NE is proposed to be comprised largely dwarf periwinkle ground cover, slender hinoki cypress trees, spiraea, sweetbox, nandina, and barberry shrubs. The proposed landscaping and open space areas would provide adequate buffer between the townhomes and surrounding uses. It is anticipated that the requested 32-foot maximum wall plate height would also be compatible with surrounding uses in the neighborhood, as conditioned. The project site is located within the Residential-14 (R-14) zone and near the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) and Center Village Zone (CV) zoned properties. The R-14 zone allows increases to the maximum wall plate height from the maximum 24 feet up to 32 feet with an administrative conditional use permit. The RMF zone allows maximum wall plate heights of 32 feet and the CV zone permits a maximum height of 50 feet, except 70 feet for vertically mixed-use buildings (commercial and residential). The project site is located at the edge of an R-14 zone, adjacent to RMF zoned parcels located on the east side of Kirkland Ave NE, placing the project site in a transitional area with regards to the height of structures. In addition, the proposed townhomes include increased setbacks from Kirkland Ave NE, which would reduce the bulk and scale of the proposed structures. The proposed townhomes would comply with the density bonus requirements of the R-14 zone as well as other 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 10 standards. This transition area is well-suited to allow an increase in the maximum wall plate height to facilitate the massing changes dictated by the development standards permitted by the nearby zones, namely RMF and CV, and the added variety of housing type would not serve as an overconcentration of a particular use. D. Noise, Light and Glare. According to the staff report, the proposed 32-foot maximum wall plate height is not anticipated to generate additional noise, light, or glare impacts over the standard 24-foot height permitted in the R-14 zone. As to light and glare impacts of th e project as a whole, the Applicant has not submitted a lighting plan as required by City regulations; therefore, a condition of approval requires that a lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit review for staff approval. As conditioned, to ensure safety and avoid excessive brightness pedestrian scale lighting should be provided on the primary entries of each unit as well as along the pedestrian walkways as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety but shall also be designed to minimize light spill and glare onto adjoining properties. E. Views. According to uncontested findings of the staff report, the proposal will not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier or any other attractive natural features. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies Hearing Examiner conditional use applications and preliminary plat applications as Type III permits. In the absence of the conditional use and preliminary plat applications, no Hearing Examiner review would be required for the site plan and it would be classified as a Type II permit by RMC 4-8-080(G). The street modification request is classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as a Type I review. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III reviews are the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for all of the permit applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned R-14 and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density. 3. Review Criteria/Approval of Street Modification. Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. RMC 4-9-200.E.3 governs the criteria for site plan review. RMC 4-9-030(C) governs the criteria for conditional use permit review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. All applicable criterion quoted below are met for the reasons identified in the corresponding conclusions of law. Street modification 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 11 standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the staff report, as well as Finding No. 3 of this decision, are adopted to determine that the proposal as modified in the staff recommendation meets the criteria for street modification2. Subdivision 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. 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 of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective 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. The criterion is met. As to compliance with the Zoning Code (including design standards), Findings 16 and 17 of the staff report are adopted by reference as if set forth in full. This includes the staff findings and conclusions in Finding 16 that the proposal qualifies for the requested density bonus due to the provision of an affordable housing unit. Each proposed lot will access a public road -- specifically the internal alleys identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(F) connects the unit lots to Kirkland Ave NE. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, there are no critical areas at the project site and the project will not cause flooding problems as it is not located in a floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards… 2 As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 24, as revised by staff the street modification request was narrowed down to authorizing an increase in the planter strip width required by RMC 4-6-060F2. It is doubtful that a modification request is necessary to increase the requirements of the City’s street design standards and this Decision should not be taken as precedent that such approval is necessary. However, the increase in planter strip width is attributable to a 12-foot rain garden (bioretention strip, in lieu of the planter strip) required by the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. Staff were unable to identify whether the Master Plan was ever adopted or how it would qualify as a regulation that can be modified by a street modification request. Ultimately, the Applicant consented to the modification and the reasons for the modification meet the modification criteria for the reasons iden tified in Finding 22 of the staff report. To the extent that the street modification process can be used and/or is necessary to waive Master Plan requirements, the criteria have been met. If the Master Plan street standards are not enforceable because they were never adopted, the increase in planter strip is justified for the reasons that such features were found necessary in the Master Plan. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 12 5. The criterion is met. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 15 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 criterion is met. As previously noted, the two internal alleys connect each unit lot to Kirkland Ave NE, 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 criterion is met. The proposal is not subject to any adopted street plan. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 8. The criterion is met. The proposal does not touch upon any designated trail. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. … 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 13 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 9. The criterion is met. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and development will not encroach into critical areas. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. No steep slopes or streams are located on the property. 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. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D, the Applicant will also be dedicating a landscaped open space tract (Tract B). 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. The criterion is met. The proposed alley along the west side of the project can be configured to provide the connectivity required by the criterion quoted above and is conditioned accordingly. As proposed, the alley does not extend to the west or south property lines, but rather is separated by 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 14 landscaped space. It is anticipated that the public alley will be extended to the north and south of the project site and will serve future developments along this block. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant dedicate eight (8) feet of public right-of-way (ROW) from the west property line for the public alley and any additional dedication needed to ensure the transition of the public alley to the north of the site re-aligns to the center of the properties sharing the western property line. The public alley shall extend from the north property line and stub at the south property line. The Applicant shall include a minimum of 10 feet of pavement width, starting from the west property line, for the full length of the property from north to south. The additional two (2) feet of paving beyond the edge of the alley ROW, shall be placed within a temporary public access easement. In addition, the proposed Biopod system, which is located within the vicinity of the new public alley, shall be flush to the finished alley grade. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 12. The criterion is met. The proposal is conditioned upon City approval of alley names, if any. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 13. The criterion is met. There is no street intersection with a public highway or major or secondary arterial. 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. 14. The criterion is met. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed alley configuration and staff has recommended approval as proposed. 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-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 15 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. The criterion is met. The only proposed dedication for street purposes is the back alley, and the alley is conditioned to connect to the alley adjoining to the north and to stub to the south for future extension of the alley, which runs parallel to Kirkland Ave NE and thus contributes to a grid pattern as well as alley access. 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. The criterion is met. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision. 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. The criterion is met. No additional street extensions are proposed, possible or necessary for the proposal. The alley extends for more than an average lot length, but it does not qualify as a street 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 16 under the criterion. A turn-around is also not necessary since fire access is available to the project along its frontage on Kirkland Avenue. 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. 18. The criterion is met. As depicted in Ex. 4, the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. 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. 19. The criterion is met. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(C): 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. 20. The criterion is met. As previously determined, the proposed lots comply with the zoning standards of the R-14 zone. As authorized by RMC 4-7-090E1, individual lots in plats that qualify as unit lot subdivisions are not required to comply with the minimum lot size, width, and depth requirements of the underlying zoning designation. All unit lot subdivision requirements are met as identified in several portions of Finding No. 16 of the staff report. 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'). 21. The criterion is met. As identified in COL No. 20, lots in unit lot subdivisions are not subject to any minimum width standards. 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'). 22. The criterion is met. The only corner lots on the project site are situated along alleys. 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. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 17 23. The criterion is met. There are no significant on-site natural features. 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. 24. The criterion is met 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. 25. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. The City’s stormwater standards, compliance of which is incorporated into the technical information report and will be further implemented during civil plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. 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. 26. The criterion is met as proposed and as shall be regulated during civil plan review. 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 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. 27. The criterion is met 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 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 18 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 landowner. 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. 28. The criterion is met 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. SURVEY: 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. 29. The criterion is met. Street name standard not applicable as the Applicant will not be constructing any public streets. Surveying standards will be enforced by staff during final plat review. Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 19 iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3- 100. 30. The criterion is met. As discussed in Conclusions of Law Nos. 4 and 5, and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s development and design regulations. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the reasons stated in Finding 15 of the staff report. The proposal does not qualify as a planned action ordinance. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 31. The criterion is met. The segregation of the proposed townhome units into two separate buildings, their separation from street frontage by extended setbacks and their proximity to more intense uses prevents overscale structures and overconcentration of development on any one portion of the lot as contemplated in RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(i). As outlined in Finding of Fact 4D, the townhome units provide direct pedestrian connections from the rights-of-way to each unit and to common open spaces throughout the project site and a combination of a shared temporary access driveway and the alleys would provide vehicular access through the project site. These vehicular and pedestrian connections provide the linkages and transitions contemplated in RMC 4-9- 200(E)(3)(b)(ii). The Applicant proposes no loading or storage areas so RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iii) is inapplicable. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the proposal will not block any views to attractive natural features as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iv). As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the perimeter of the project site and interior open space tracts is landscaped, providing the amenities required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(v). As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5D, as 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 20 conditioned, the Applicant is required to prepare a lighting plan that minimizes light impacts to adjoining properties as contemplated by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(vi). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 32. The criterion is met. Open Space and landscaping has been sited throughout the development, which would provide privacy and buffer some of the noise either entering or leaving the project site as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(i). The scale of the project is appropriate for its location as contemplated by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(ii) for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. There does not appear to be much on-site vegetation as the project site is already developed with two duplexes and some outbuildings. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the project site only contains 4 significant trees, one of which is dead. As further outlined in Finding of Fact 5B, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide for replacement trees as required by the City’s tree retention standards since all existing trees have to be removed to accommodate the development. As noted in the staff report, the project site is flat and minimal grading will be required. Due to the topography and lack of vegetation, the proposal is found to comply with RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c)(iii). As identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposed and required landscaping will help define and enhance open spaces and enhance privacy and aesthetics as contemplated by RMC 4-9- 200(E)(3)(c)(iv). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 21 ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 33. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E and 4F. No loading or delivery spaces are proposed. The facility will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities (most notably bicycle parking spaces) for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4F and 4H. Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as outlined Finding of Fact No. 4E. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 34. The criterion is met. As detailed in Finding of Fact 4E, the proposal concentrates most of its open space in front of the buildings, thereby creating a distinctive focal point that includes sufficient space for passive and active recreation as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 35. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, there are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 36. The criterion is met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, there are no critical areas on the site. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 37. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 22 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 38. No further phasing is proposed. Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 39. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as concluded in Conclusions of Law No. 4 and 5. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 40. The criterion is met. The proposed use involves townhomes in an area characterized by single-family and multi-family development. The added variety of housing type and additional building height will not serve as an overconcentration of a particular use. The proposed location is suited for the proposed use for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 41. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 42. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 23 43. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal includes parking that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 44. The criterion is met. As outlined in Findings of Fact No. 4E and 4F, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 45. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 46. The criterion is met. As shown in the conceptual landscape plan for the proposal, Ex. 6, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. DECISION The proposed preliminary plat, unit lot subdivision, administrative site plan, administrative conditional use and street modification comply with all applicable criteria for the reasons identified in the conclusions of law of this decision and are all approved, subject to the street modification revisions recommended by staff as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit a draft affordable housing covenant to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval by the Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney at the time of Building Permit review. Such agreement shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The Applicant shall create a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) that maintains all improvements and landscaping in the common space tracts and any and all other common improvements. A draft of the HOA documents shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager and the City Attorney prior to recording of the Unit Lot Subdivision. Such documents shall be recorded concurrently with the Unit Lot Subdivision. 3. The Applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit application identifying the location of code compliant bicycle parking meeting the standards of RMC 4-4-080.F.11. The revised plans shall be 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 24 reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval. 4. The Applicant shall revise the proposed pedestrian connections to limit the interruption within the common open space tract. The Applicant shall include and show required picnic areas, space for recreational activities, and other activities as appropriate within the common open space for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit. 5. The yard space and pedestrian connection between the two proposed structures (between units 5 and 6) shall be placed in a common open space tract. 6. The Applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the fence and retaining wall regulations and minimum tree spacing standards for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Civil Construction Permit application. 7. The balcony railings for the proposed structures shall be mostly transparent and two different color pallets shall be used for the two structures. A materials board showing the two-color palettes, coded to the exterior building elevations, shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. 8. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations for the northern building on the project site, utilizing a different dormer roof form, or other modified roof form alternative for the proposed structure, for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, at the time of Building Permit application. In addition, each building shall utilize a different roof color. 9. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations at the time of Building Permit application providing the required three and one-half inches (3 1/2”) minimum trim surrounding all windows and doors and one of the following architectural details: shutters, knee braces, flower boxes, or columns. Alternatively, the Applicant may submit a modification request to vary from any of these standards for review and approval, prior to Building Permit application. 10. The Applicant shall submit a revised tree retention and replacement plan that demonstrates compliance with minimum tree replacement planting requirements, at the time of Civil Construction permit application. 11. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan with utility box locations and any utility boxes that are visible to the public be screened with berms and/or landscaping. The final detailed landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval. 12. The Applicant shall submit revised plans with the Building Permit application identifying the location of trash and recycling containers. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval. 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 25 13. The Applicant shall submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment with the Building Permit application. The plan set shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Building Permit approval. 14. A lighting plan shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. To ensure safety and avoid excessive brightness pedestrian scale lighting should be provided on the primary entries of each unit as well as along the pedestrian walkways as necessary to provide sufficient lighting for pedestrian safety but shall also be designed to minimize light spill and glare onto adjoining properties. 15. The proposed temporary access driveway shall be privately owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. The Applicant shall record a note on the face of the plat that executes a shared maintenance agreement for equal ownership and maintenance responsibilities for improvements in the shared driveway easement. A draft version of a shared maintenance agreement shall be submitted for review and approval by the current planning project manager prior to plat recording. 16. The Applicant shall dedicate eight (8) feet of public right-of-way (ROW) from the west property line for the public alley and any additional dedication needed to ensure the transition of the public alley to the north of the site re- aligns to the center of the properties sharing the western property line. The public alley shall extend from the north property line and stub at the south property line. The Applicant shall include a minimum of 10 feet of pavement width, starting from the west property line, for the full length of the property from north to south. The additional two (2) feet of paving, beyond the edge of the alley ROW, shall be placed within a temporary public access easement. In addition, the proposed Biopod system, which is located within the vicinity of the new public alley, shall be flush the finished alley grade. 17. Alley names shall be approved by the City and alley name signs shall be installed if required by City staff. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 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 PP, ULS, CU, SM and BSP - 26 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 landowner. 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. 21. Lot corners shall be marked as required by RMC 4-7-210. 22. As required by RMC 4-7-090F8a, the title of the final plat shall include the term “unit lot subdivision.” 23. For the root zones of neighboring trees potentially affected by alley construction, such trees shall either be protected during construction pursuant to the City tree protection standards, or an arborist shall provide a report that construction impacts would not result in damage to the offsite trees creating an unsafe situation, or the Applicant shall receive permission from the property owner to remove the trees to complete the construction. Furthermore, if the tress are removed from the neighboring properties the Applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the 20% tree retention rate or re-planting requirements. DATED this 29th day of May, 2020. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14- day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.