BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON SUMMARY

Transcription

1 M JUL IS 0 ilveb 'SOFHCI 0 0 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Wilson Park II Preliminary Plat and Planned Urban Development LUA-0, ECF, PP, PPUD SUMMARY FINAL DECISION The Applicants propose a preliminary plat to subdivide a. acre parcel into ten single-family residential lots and one tract for open space. A planned urban development ("PUD") is proposed in order to modify minimum lot sizes and other development standards. The preliminary plat and PUD are approved subject to conditions. TESTIMONY 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 th Street. It is an existing. acre site with split-zoning. A portion of the site is zoned R- which has a maximum of dwelling units per acre, and another portion of the site is zoned R-l which allows one dwelling unit per acre. The site has an Urban Separator overlay present on an eastern portion of the site in conjunction with steep slopes. The Applicants are proposing to create a subdivision of detached single family homes with 0 lots. The lots would range in size from,0 to, sq ft, and the site 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, sq ft. which is roughly 0 percent of the site (correction to the Staff Report which gives the coverage as 0 percent). The city zoning map notes the split zoning of the site (a squiggly line marks the split area). A map of the site shows the protected slopes in bright orange and or lower percent slopes in yellow. The site is shown with a dashed dark line and is PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

2 0 0 roughly square-shaped. South 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 00 by Mr. Carl Zing. Noting plate of the 00 geo-tech report, Ms. Henning stated that the west side of the site was analyzed in that report with a proposal for lots. Exhibit is a 0 geo-tech report which supplements the 00 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- zone on its own (with the road taken out) about acre would be left. This would allow for units (which could be duplexes, triplexes, etc.). In the R-l portion of the site, there could still only be dwelling unit. Thus, if the density was calculated in the original way, there could be up to 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 shows the proposal, including the 0 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, the R- zone is the light brown color while R-l zone is the green color. Lot,, and would be split-zoned parcels. Staff is recommending that the plat subscribe to the R- zoning standards which are a residential single family (RSF) designation. Regardless, the plat meets policies of multiple land-use possibilities being considered. The R- designation is in the Residential Single Family (RSF) while R-l is in Residential Low Density (RLD) standard. R- 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 th, 0. 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 ft. of paving for road, -ft sidewalks, and a landscape strip. Parking will be allowed on the east side of the street. Exhibit 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. It is a hardsurface 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 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

3 0 0 for the fencing problem. Staff also asks that the walking path be moved out of the boundaries of Lot 0. There is no design yet for the gazebo, but it is contained in a 0 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 00 ft. away. Staff recommends a condition that there be a walking path along S th 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- standards. The lots meet the minimum size standards of the R- zone and all meet the width requirements except for Lot. The R- standard currently allows ft from the garage face to the back sidewalk; however, Staff is recommending ft 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- standard. Staff believes the R- 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 shows the steep slope area with the plan and demonstrates that approximately a third more area is protected under the R- 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- 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 trees on the site, and of the trees will be removed because they are in the section where the public streets will be built (Exhibit ). There are three trees in the critical areas and buffers which don't count. This leaves trees to consider for zoning standards. Zoning requirements state that 0 trees on-site will have to be retained. The Applicants are proposing to retain the necessary 0 trees and will be adding at least 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 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 -ft wide landscape strip be included along the south side of Lot. 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 th 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. ARY PLAT AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

4 0 0 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, 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. Staff asks that Lot l'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 conditions presented in the Staff Report. Jim Hanson, Ballard Cove's Lane, stated that the Applicants agree the R- standards should apply. The Applicants have no objection to the ft 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-l 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- zone to the R- zone to the north and to the R- zones to the east and south. Rather than having townhouses and duplexes, the Applicants feel 0 single-family homes are more appropriate. The previous proposals (from 00) 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 00 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 percent Urban Separator line as the designation between the R-l and the R-. Soos Creek is the purveyor of the water and Renton is the purveyor of the sewer. The 00 drainage manual (used for Wilson Park I and ) requires that the detention facility be sized to accommodate 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 (which asks for a walking path to the nearest bus stop on th 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. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

5 Jim Hanson noted that the timing for the PUD expiration is different for the plat expiration. Plats are valid for years while PUDs are only valid for years. The Applicants ask that the expiration of the PUD be increased to years. Jennifer Hennings noted, if the plat was developed under the R- standards, the Applicants could build up to lots. Instead, the Applicants are proposing ten lots. If the R-l and R- density standards were used, up to lots could be built with a density of. per acre. Under the current proposal, there are. units per acre. EXHIBITS The June, 0 Staff Report in addition to Exhibits - identified in pages - of the Staff Report were admitted into the record at the June, 0 hearing. 0 Procedural: FINDINGS OF FACT 0. Applicants. Robert and Doravin Wilson.. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on June, 0 at :00 pm in the City of Renton Council Chambers. Substantive:. Project Description. The Applicants request preliminary plat approval to subdivide a. acre parcel into ten lots for single-family homes at a proposed density of. 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-l and R- 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- and R-l. The R-l Zone comprises, square feet (including the steep slope area), and the R- portion of the site is, square feet. Proposed density averages. dwelling units per acre across the site, with nine lots proposed in the R- area and one lot proposed within the R-l. Access would be provided from South th Street via a new street constructed as part of the approved Wilson Park I plat. The site contains, square feet of slopes with greater than 0% 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 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

6 well as will a soft surface, -foot wide walking path around Lot -0. 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-l is considered to be within the Urban Separator. Per RMC --0(E)()(a)(ii), 0% of the area within the Urban Separator must be dedicated as irrevocable open space. The Applicants propose to retain, square feet, or 0% 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-l and R- designations. Proposed lots would range in size from,0 square feet to, square feet 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, 0, according to Staff testimony. Based on the submitted Conceptual Utilities Plan (Exhibit ), there is an existing sewer main located in th Avenue South. The Applicants have proposed to connect to this existing main and extend an -inch sanitary sewer line to provide sewer to the development. This plan sheet also identifies an -inch water line extension from th 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 ). 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 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

7 0 0 facility for the two projects and demonstrates that the facility as revised for Wilson Park II is sufficient to accommodate both Wilson Park I and Wilson Park II. The City of Renton's 00 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 II. 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,00 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. 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 0% covering, sq. ft. within the Talbot Urban Separator. Both the subject plat and Wilson Park I are required to set aside 0% 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 --0(E) requires PUDs to provide large concentrated areas of open space, equivalent to 0% 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, square feet, or 0% of the Talbot Urban Separator area in Open Space Tract A. The site is,0 sq. ft. and the provided open space tract is, sq.ft, comprising approximately 0% of the site, and exceeding the open space standards by, sq. ft. A 0 lineal foot (,0 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 (RMC--0E,.a.ii). The Applicants have proposed to provide an approximately 0 sq. ft. common park that includes a concrete path, pergola/gazebo and landscaping. The conditions of approval require the proposed development provide 00 sq. ft. of common space or recreation area to meet the 0 sq. ft. required by PUD regulations for each of the ten lots. The proposed park is located along the perimeters of proposed Lots -0 and connects to the walking path through the remainder of Tract A. The conditions of approval require that the section PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

8 0 0 on the south side of Lot 0 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 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 th Street with an -foot planter strip. Another -foot planter strip is required along the "inside" of Road A. Furthermore, the pedestrian looped trail PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

9 0 0 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 ). The Applicants have observed that presently school buses travel east on South th Street in the morning, stopping in South th Street to pick-up students. The buses then travel west in the afternoon, stopping in South th 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 th Street, and would require that students walk approximately 00 feet to the west to be picked up at the corner of South th 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 -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 n. 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 n, 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. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

10 0 0 Access to the property should not adversely affect adjoining properties and there are no difficult turning patterns. The site access street intersects South th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. Previously, the site distance on South th Street was evaluated as part of Wilson Park I. It was determined then that the City of Renton intersection and stopping sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions would be met. As shown in Ex., the internal road does not traverse any steep gradients and there is no driveway access to any busy streets as there is no driveway access to South th Street. G. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. Frontage improvements are required along South th Street. The property has frontage in two locations, where the proposed internal Road A intersects South th Street, and where a portion of Tract A fronts on South th Street. In both cases, the Applicants are required to construct curb, gutter, -foot wide sidewalks, and an -foot wide planting strip. The Applicants' proposal indicates a -foot wide sidewalk along South th Street on the south side of Lot. No planting strip is proposed within the South th Street right-of-way. No street improvements are proposed within the right-of-way for South th Street for the portion where Tract A fronts on the street (Exhibit, ). The conditions of approval require revision of the construction engineering plans, and final detailed landscape plan to show the required street improvements and landscaping prior to the Final PUD and Final Plat approval process. The Applicants submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (Exhibit ) prepared by TraffEx. The report indicates that the proposal would utilize the same access to South th Street as the approved Wilson Park I Plat. The site access street intersects South th Street on the outside of a horizontal curve on South th Street to optimize sight distance in both the east and west direction for vehicles entering and exiting the site. The report also indicates that the horizon year for the study is 0, as this is the year construction of both plats is anticipated. The study determined the Level-of-Service (LOS) with the project will be LOS B for future 0 conditions. This LOS satisfies the City's LOS 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 sight distance requirements in both the east and west directions will be met. The report 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 traffic mitigation in the environmental report. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -0

11 0 0 The Renton School District (RSD) does not operate on South th Street. The closest school bus stop is approximately 00 feet to the west at the corner of South th Street and Talbot Road South. In order to provide an appropriate safe route to schools, the conditions of approval require a walking path within the improved right-of-way, with a minimum -foot asphalt path to the nearest school bus stop as determined safe by City staff. This should be installed concurrent with street and utility improvements.. Adverse Impacts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services, 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 Report, Ex. -, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. The mitigation measures 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. encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law of Staff. A. Trees. Loss of trees is an impact that Renton regulations require mitigated. As conditioned, 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 -inch caliper or greater whereas it appears that City standards require trees of a -inch caliper or greater to be protected. The Staff Report notes that the site contains a total of trees of -inch caliper or larger, are within the proposed public right-of-way, and are located in critical areas and their buffers resulting in protected trees on site (Exhibit, 0). Of these, trees are within the R-l zone, and trees within the R- zoned portions of the property. The R-l zone requires 0 percent tree retention of the protected trees on site, while the R- requires 0 percent tree retention. At a 0 percent retention rate in the R-l zone, trees of greater than -inch caliper would be required to be retained. At 0 percent retention rate in the R- zone, trees of greater than -inch would need to be retained. This is a total of 0 trees of greater than -inch caliper required to be retained. The Applicants have identified 0 trees that would be retained thus meeting the requirement for trees of greater than -inch caliper. In addition, the Applicants propose to plant 0 new trees on site, which includes street trees within the 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 standards require the protection of -inch caliper trees, not -inch trees as suggested in the Staff Report. The conditions of approval will require that the tree retention requirements be applied to trees that are of -inch caliper or greater. B. Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. Perimeter screening will ensure compatibility and minimize aesthetic impacts. Proposed landscaping on the south boundary of Lot 0 would provide some screening of when viewed from South th Street. Proposed plantings of the southeast corner of Lot would provide some incremental screening for Lot when viewed from th Avenue South. Additional planting within the right-of-way is required as a PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

12 0 0 condition of approval along th Avenue South. This requires dedication of additional rightof-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- design standards also contributes to compatibility, as many adjoining uses are also zoned R-. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully mitigated.. Superiority in Design. The proposed PUD design is superior to that which would be allowed under applicable subdivision regulations. This finding is based upon Staffs 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 Staffs expertise and the lack of any evidence to the contrary the staff conclusions are adopted. At page, 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 0% 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-l and R- 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 PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

13 0 0 modifications appears to be conformance to the residential design standards of the R- zone as conditioned, which apparently provides for stricter design guidelines in some respects than that required of the R-l or R- zone, promotes compatibility of design between the interior R-l and R- districts (although there is only one lot in the R-l zone) and also provides for greater compatibility in design with adjoining R- uses. The requested lot size and setback modifications allow for a clustered R- development that provides increased protection of critical areas creating an appearance of openness. The reduced density applied from the R- 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- side yard setbacks, as such all structures will maintain a minimum of 0 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- district by three feet.. 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. Procedural: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Authority. RMC --00(C) and --00(D)() provide that the Hearing Examiner shall hold a hearing and issue a final decision on preliminary plat applications. RMC --0(F)() authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final decisions on planned urban development applications. Substantive:. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project is divided into two zoning designations: R- and R-l. The comprehensive plan map land use designation for the R- Zone is Residential Single Family (RSF) while the R-l Zone is Residential Low Density (RLD).. Review Criteria. The Renton Municipal Code does not clearly identify the criteria the Examiner must apply in assessing a subdivision or a PUD. Chapter - RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review and RMC --0 governs PUD criteria. Without any more specific code guidance, the Examiner concludes that he must find that all applicable criteria in Chapter - and RMC --0 must be satisfied for preliminary plat and PUD approval. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC --00(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

14 0 0. Access: Establish access to a public roadfor each segregated parcel.. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, 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.. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes.. 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., and as depicted in Ex., 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., the project makes adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. RMC --00(I)(l):...The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards.... The proposed preliminary plat is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Section (a) of the Staff Report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC --0(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.. The internal circulation system of the subdivision connects to South th Street, an existing public street. RMC --0(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City.. 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 th Street. The aerial photo on page 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 Fs internal road to the north of the subject property. RMC --0(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. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

15 0 0. The Staff Report and administrative record do not identify any officially designated trail in the vicinity. RMC --0(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions:. 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. 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 (0%) or greater as measured per RMC -- 00Jla, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved.. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC --0, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations.. As determined in the Findings of Fact, significant protective measures and safeguards are proposed and conditioned to ensure that the proposed development is adequately protected from the 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 problem. The property is encumbered by slopes in excess of 0%. As discussed in Findings of Fact No. and, no lots will be created that are unsuitable for subdivision. The entire slope area will be placed in an open space tract (Tract A). The conditions of approval will require the tract to be placed in a Native Protection Area Easement. In assessing compliance with RMC --0, the Staff Report only identifies trees on site that are of - inch caliper or larger. There is nothing in RMC --0 that limits tree retention to trees that of - inch caliper or higher. RMC --00 defines a tree as having a caliper of inches or higher and the PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

16 0 0 tree retention requirements of RMC --0 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. (D), the Conditions of approval will also require that tree retention be applied to all trees with a two inch caliper or greater. RMC --0; Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multifamily 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. 0. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. (D), the proposal meets both park and open space requirements. RMC --0(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 E of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department.. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No., the only street that the project could connect to is South th Street. RMC --0(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.. As Conditioned. RMC --0(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.. If South th 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 --0(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC --00 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twentyfivefeet (') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

17 0 0. The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the street alignment as noted in Finding of Fact No. (G). RMC --0(E):. 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.. 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- through T- and Community Design Element, Objective CD-Mand Policies CD-0 and CD-0.. 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.. 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.. 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-l, and R- 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.... Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.. 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.. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. there are no roads other than South th 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. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -

18 0 0 RMC --0(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.. As Conditioned. RMC --0(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.. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. there are no feasible street connections to the project other than directly to South th Street and the Wilson Park I plat as proposed. --0(A): Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two () tiers of lots, except where:. Abutting principal arterials defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.. The location and extent of environmental constraints prevent a standard plat land configuration, including size and shape of the parcel.. Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions and, the proponent must demonstrate that a different layout or provisions of an alley system is not feasible.. The steep slopes and the shape of the parcel could not accommodate two tiers of lots. --0(B): Where circumstances warrant, the Reviewing Official may require one or more public crosswalks or walkways of not less than six feet (') 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.. As identified in Finding of Fact (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 --0(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 0. As depicted in Ex., the side lines are in conformance with the requirement quoted above. PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT -