HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Sound Transit Center Hearing Examiner Decision_202410291
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: South Renton Transit Center
Master Plan, Hearing Examiner Site Plan,
Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment
and Bicycle and Driveway Modifications
PR21-000095
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
Sound Transit requests approval of Master Plan Review, Site Plan Review, a Hearing Examiner
Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment and a bicycle parking and driveway modification to
construct the South Renton Transit Center (SRTC) located at 750 Rainier Ave S. The applications are
approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing
testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-42 as identified in the in the staff prepared document entitled “Exhibits” were admitted
into the record during the October 15, 2024 hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted
during the hearing:
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Exhibit 43 Applicant expert resumes
Exhibit 44 Project History
Exhibit 45 Notice of Application
Exhibit 46 Affidavit of public sign
Exhibit 47 Title Report
Exhibit 48 Sound Transit Resolution R2021-05
Exhibit 49 Background on Parking Garage
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Gary Yao, Sound Transit, 401 S Jackson St, Seattle, WA 98104.
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11:00 am on October 15, 2024.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. Sound Transit requests approval of Master Plan Review, Site Plan
Review, a Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit. Lot Line Adjustment and a bicycle parking and
driveway modification to construct the South Renton Transit Center (SRTC) located at 750 Rainier
Ave S.
The subject property is approximately 8.3 acres and is mostly flat with impervious surfaces. Initially
developed as an auto dealership and service garage, the businesses that were previously on the site have
been relocated.
Sound Transit has partnered with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to
implement new bus rapid transit (BRT) service along I-405. As part of the I-405 BRT program, Sound
Transit is proposing to construct BRT facilities in Renton, Burien, Tukwila, Bellevue, Kirkland,
Bothell, and Lynnwood. The transit center would include stops for Sound Transit and King County
Metro (KCM) routes, bus operator facilities, transit shelter canopy, eight (8) bus bays, 13-bus layover
spaces with a gantry for bus charging, 158-stall surface parking lot for transit center users, and bicycle
racks/lockers. Vehicle access would be from Rainier Avenue S and Lake Avenue S.
Environmental review was completed by Sound Transit, as its own lead agency completed
environmental review and issued a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non-
Significance on September 30, 2020. In 2021, the Applicant received a demolition permit, a critical
areas exemption (for work within a Seismic Hazard Area), and a critical areas approval (for work within
a Wellhead Protection Area) for the demolition and removal of the four buildings that were onsite.
Additional work would include roadway improvements on Rainier Avenue S, Hardie Avenue SW, S
Grady Way, and Lake Avenue S (APN 1923059032) to facilitate bus and pedestrian ingress and egress
to the site, landscaping, utility improvements, and construction of a stormwater conveyance and
treatment system. Grading would include approximately 12,906 cubic yards of cut and approximately
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
14,150 cubic yards of fill from an approved source.
One of the two modification requests is composed of two modifications to driveway standards. RMC
4-4-080(I)(3)(c) limits driveway width to 30 feet. The Applicant requests an increase of less than four
feet to this maximum width. RMC 4-4-080(I)(4)(b) limits the number of driveways to the site to 2.5
based upon a standard of no more than one driveway per 165 feet of street frontage. The Applicant
requests 3.0 driveways.
The other modification is to bicycle parking standards. RMC 4-4-080(F)(11)(b)(v) requires that bike
parking be located within 50 feet from any entrance to an enclosed building onsite.
The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to allow for the transit bays and core transit facilities to be
located on one (1) parcel, two (2) other parcels would each include a surface parking lot, and the fourth
parcel would include the bioretention facility proposed along S Grady Way.
4. Surrounding Uses. Surrounding land uses are primarily composed of auto dealerships, some
transitional housing and a retail office.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate
infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act
Determination of Non-significance (DNS) was issued on September 30, 2020 and a subsequent DNS
Addendum was also issued (Exhibit 29 and 30). Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Compatibility, Structure Placement, Overconcentration and Scale. As conditioned, the structure
placement and scale are not expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent uses and is
designed to protect privacy and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain
compatibility with existing development and surrounding uses.
Surrounding uses are fully compatible in size and scale. The South Renton Park and Ride is to
the east of the project site, which integrates well with the project. The staff report aerial
photograph shows the projects site bounded primarily by parking or car lots or major arterials
except for a couple commercial buildings on the north side. Commercial uses and buildings of
similar scale are almost exclusively located in the vicinity of the project, except for what appears
to be some single family residential property a few blocks to the northeast, north of SW 7th St.
There are no sensitive receptors such as residential homes, churches, schools, or recreational
areas located immediately adjacent to the site.
The proposal is also ideally compatible in function and use. The proposal is a key element of
the City’s 2021 Rainier/Grady Junction TOD Subarea Plan and the City’s 2021-2026
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). TIP #20-45, BRT Improvements would ensure
speed and reliability of the BRT system into and out of the SRTC. The Subarea Plan aims to
provide “[…] a vision and strategies to guide future growth and achieve a holistic, people-
oriented neighborhood around Sound Transit's planned BRT line and transit center at the
intersection of Rainier Ave S and S Grady Way.” The Subarea Plan strategies create a framework
to facilitate mixed-use development, maximize multimodal transportation options, improve
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
pedestrian connectivity, and integrate the subarea with adjacent areas by establishing a distinct
neighborhood from Downtown but that is consistent with the goals of the City Center
Community Plan. The Subarea Plan also identifies key opportunities associated with the
proposal and increased levels of activity in the area that include establishment and support of a
thriving business district, creation of multimodal, mixed-use corridor streets, and strengthening
of the area’s role as a regional jobs center. Sound Transit’s proposal and BRT projects are an
essential part of the Subarea Plan in increasing multi-modal transportation, increasing activity
in the area of Rainier/Grady junction, and increasing the connectivity of the Rainier/Grady
junction and downtown Renton area.
The proposal also does not serve as a detrimental overconcentration of use. Within the City of
Renton, there is only one existing transit center, located approximately one mile away from this
project, which is insufficient to serve the needs for future residents. The City of Renton 2014
Comprehensive Plan provides that existing transportation facilities are reaching the end of their
design life and not meeting demand for alternatives to single-occupancy vehicles. The proposal
would be unique to the area and would connect to the South Renton park-and-ride immediately
to the east and to key bus corridors in the City Center area. The proposal addresses the gaps (and
lack of concentration) of public transportation in the area.
B. Views/Shoreline Access. No significant obstruction of existing views of natural features are
anticipated, including view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. The proposed structures
associated with the proposal would be single story structures and are small in scale and not
expected to adversely impact views.
C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts.
The architectural elevations (Exhibit 10) include lighting details. Luminaires will provide
lighting throughout the site with 25-foot (25’) mounting heights, which will be installed
according to guidelines in RMC 4-4-075. There would be a slight increase in visible artificial
lighting where lights would be used to safely illuminate the walkways and parking areas; the
transit center island; and the potentially illuminated BRT-branded pylon. Lights would also be
used to illuminate the site following Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design standards
to help create a safer environment. This increased lighting would occur in low levels of natural
light and in the evening and night but according to the staff report would not be expected to
noticeably increase lighting levels in the surrounding area. These lighting levels would comply
with the requirements of Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual, which includes a requirement
to eliminate light trespass onto nearby windows and adjacent properties. In addition, the project
would comply with Sound Transit’s Design Criteria Manual requirement to provide street and
highway lighting that conforms to the criteria and standards of the city. According to the staff
report, it is not anticipated that the proposal would result in excessive brightness or glare to
adjacent properties and street.
The Applicant contends that potential noise impacts from the proposed transit center have been
evaluated and would be adequately mitigated. There are no sensitive noise receptors near the
site. As previously noted, surrounding uses are primarily large parking or car lots with just a
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
couple commercial buildings in close proximity. Prior to construction, the contractor would
develop a Noise Control Plan demonstrating how the local noise limits can be achieved.
Construction equipment would generate noise during the day and night. None of the noises
generated on the completed facility would exceed the City of Renton’s maximum permissible
sound level for the site’s zoning or that of nearby receiving sites. The project would adhere to
maximum environmental noise level regulations in RMC 8-7-2, which adopts WAC 173-60-
020, 173-60-040, 173-60-050, and 173-60-090. If construction noise is anticipated to exceed the
maximum environmental noise levels per the WAC 173-60, Sound Transit would apply for a
noise variance per RMC 8-7-8.
During operations, typical noise from buses entering and leaving the transit center or traveling
in the bus-only lanes would include noise from tires, propulsion motors, and other auxiliary
equipment on the vehicles, which is predicted to be a 24-hour day/night level (Ldn) of 57 dBA
at 1 S Grady Way, the nearest noise-sensitive receiver. This is well below the existing measured
noise level of an Ldn of 72 dBA and would not exceed the Federal Transportation Administration
Ldn noise impact criteria (66 dBA for a moderate impact and 72 dBA for a severe impact).
Roadway improvements at the SRTC would not increase capacity or substantially change the
vertical or horizontal roadway alignment. The improvements would result in minimal to no
change to overall traffic volumes on the roadway; therefore, no change to the overall traffic noise
levels is expected.
D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view and
separated from other uses.
A screening detail (Exhibit 13) was submitted with the application materials. Screening would
be provided for all surface-mounted equipment. The equipment yard would be screened with
metal fencing, perforated metal over metal fencing, a metal canopy, and columns. In addition,
landscaping is proposed between the equipment yard and the shared-use path on S Grady Way,
further screening the equipment yard from view.
While no rooftop equipment is currently proposed for the site, the charging gantry, located at the
bus layover charging yard would have elevated equipment for charging electric buses. The
charging gantry would be wrapped on both sides of the horizontal truss with a pattern design
feature to screen the equipment from view. The columns of the charging gantry would also be
wrapped. Sound Transit, KCM, and the city are in coordination on the design of the gantry wrap.
A condition of approval requires that the design of the gantry wrap be approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The proposal doesn’t include any the proposal doesn’t include any loading or delivery areas so
no screening or separation is necessary for those areas.
E. Fencing and Retaining Walls. Proposed fencing and retaining walls will not create any
significant impacts.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
As shown on the submitted Site Plan (Exhibit 2), a low retaining wall is proposed along the north
property line, adjacent to the transit center loop. The maximum visible extent of the retaining
wall from the property to the north would be approximately 3.3 feet (3.3’). An eight-foot (8’)
high fence is proposed on top of the retaining wall and would exceed the 50% transparency
requirement. As design progresses, it is anticipated that all retaining wall and fencing standards
would be met, however if an element of these standards cannot be met, a modification would be
required.
F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features and will protect the
natural landscape. A conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 3) was submitted with the project
application materials. The project’s landscaping plan shows the retention of existing street trees
along Rainier Ave S. Tree removals were selected based on tree health and conflicts with transit
center feature and frontage improvement construction. Currently, most of the site is paved as
part of its former use as an auto dealer and repair shop. The project will increase the amount of
landscaping on the site. There are no existing critical areas that require preservation on the
project site.
G. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and
proposed landscaping.
A Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 3) was submitted with the land use application materials.
The submitted conceptual landscape plan includes the minimum required 10-foot (10’)
landscaping strips on all sides of the site abutting a public street. Street frontage landscaping
would include a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover.
The Conceptual Landscape Plan, Ex. 3, includes landscaping within the proposed surface
parking lot. The proposed parking lot would include a total of 158 parking spaces, requiring 35
square feet per parking space (or a total of 5,530 square feet of landscaping). The project
proposes to allocate approximately 8,873 square feet of interior parking landscaping. All interior
parking lot landscaped areas exceed the required dimensions. No parking space would be further
than 50 feet (50’) from a landscaped area within the proposed parking lot. The project proposal
includes three (3) meandering bioretention facilities. Landscaping is proposed surrounding the
perimeter of these facilities. The vegetation within the bioretention facilities, and the facilities
themselves, would comply with the current City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
H. Critical Areas. There are no existing critical areas that require preservation on the project
site.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water
and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. The Applicant has submitted a
preliminary utility plan (Exhibit 9) with the land use application that identifies improvements
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
that the Applicant will install to connect to existing City of Renton water and sewer lines.
The proposal will be subject to system development charges to cover pro-rata impacts to the
City’s water and sewer system.
B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and
Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the
proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
Renton Regional Fire Authority has determined that the preliminary fire flow demand for
the proposed development is 1,500 gpm for the new buildings and development including
the use of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The water main improvements will be required
to provide domestic and fire protection service to the development in compliance with
adopted City codes and regulations.
C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary
Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 25), which proposes a drainage system that
staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design
Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. Conformance to the RSWDM and
associated standards establishes adequate provision for drainage.
The TIR analyzes existing conditions and proposed surface water collection and
distribution. Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls under Peak Rate
Flow Control Standard (matching Existing Site Conditions) and is located within the Black
River drainage basin. The development is subject to a Full Drainage Review in accordance
with the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine (9) core
requirements and the six (6) special requirements have been discussed in the Technical
Information Report. The detention, water quality and conveyance shall be designed in
accordance with the RSWDM that is current at the time of the civil construction permit
application. The Applicant has proposed to connect to the City of Renton’s storm drainage
system located in four (4) distinct locations matching the existing threshold discharge areas
in Rainier Ave S, S Grady Way, Lake Ave S and Hardie Ave S. The project is not proposing
any drainage diversions.
Due to the project site’s location within the peak rate flow control matching existing
conditions basin and having an existing impervious coverage of nearly 100%, a formal
detention system would not be triggered. During the civil construction permit process, the
final plans will be reviewed in full detail to ensure that the flow control standards are being
met as outlined in the 2022 RSWDM.
The Applicant is proposing to use the modular wetlands, biofiltration swales and Filterra
units in order for the project to meet the enhanced water quality requirements. The facilities
are located throughout the site and within Rainier Ave S and Lake Ave S to meet Core
Requirement #8.
The development is subject to a surface water system development charge (SDC) fees. Fees
will be charged based on the rate at the time of construction permit issuance. The 2024 SDC
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
fee is $0.92 per square foot of new impervious surface plus administrative costs, but not less
than $2,300.
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
parks and open space. Overall, City standards do not require any specific amounts of open
space. There is existing visually prominent artwork on the corner of Rainier Ave S and S
Grady Way that will be preserved. Sound Transit is also providing a scenic shared-use path
with landscaping, plaza pathways, seat walls, lighting, and a meandering bioretention facility
that will mimic a stream.
E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities.
Access to the parking lot will be from a side street (Lake Ave S) and through existing
driveways on Rainier Ave S. No new access routes will be created on arterials. The
Applicant contends that the proposed driveways would meet the safety, function,
appearance, environmental protection, and maintainability goals of the code. All driveways
would have marked crosswalks and the driveways onto Rainier Ave S at Hardie Ave SW
would have signalization making it safer than a standard driveway for both pedestrians and
motorists, and also improving the baseline condition at the intersection.
The staff report finds that the proposed pedestrian and vehicular access provide a safe and
efficient system for pedestrians and vehicles. As shown on the submitted site plan (Exhibit
2), pedestrian walkways and landscaping are both proposed throughout the site. Access to
the bus bays is emphasized by the pedestrian access, with access from Lake Ave S and
Rainier Ave S located at the northeast and southeast corners of the site respectively.
Pedestrians on S Grady Way may access the site through two (2) plaza pathways from the
proposed shared-use path or at the southeast corner via a proposed walkway adjacent to Lake
Ave S, or they may walk north along the improved sidewalk on Rainier Ave S to the
aforementioned northwest entrance. The proposed buildings can then be accessed via Rainier
Ave S entrance or via the bus bays for pedestrians coming from Lake Ave S or S Grady Way.
The Applicant’s traffic studies have found that the proposal will not reduce intersection level
of service standards. The traffic studies are composed of an Interim Parking Traffic Analysis
Summary Memo dated May, 2022 (Exhibit 21), a Traffic Analysis for Transit Access to
South Renton Transit Center dated September, 2022 (Exhibit 22), and an Additional
Transportation Analysis Memorandum dated June, 2024 (Exhibit 23) were submitted with
the formal application materials. Based on the calculations provided, weekday peak hour
AM trips would generate 221 new vehicle trips, with 53 vehicles leaving and 168 vehicles
entering the site in the interim scenario and 380 new vehicle trips, with 75 vehicles leaving
and 305 vehicles entering in the full build out scenario. Weekday peak hour PM trips would
generate 234 new vehicle trips, with 62 vehicles entering and 172 vehicles exiting the site in
the interim scenario and 404 new vehicle trips, with 92 vehicles entering and 312 vehicles
exiting the site in the full build out scenario. As detailed in the report the proposed project is
not expected to lower the levels of service of the surrounding intersections included in the
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
traffic study and only increased by a maximum of 15 seconds in the five (5) study
intersections.
F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle
facilities. The proposal is of course a transit facility and will significantly add to the
functionality and convenience of transit service to City guests and residents.
On the north property line, a twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path is proposed that would
provide pedestrian connectivity from Lake Ave S to Rainier Ave S. The City’s Public Works
Department has identified this proposed multi-use path as a missing link for a bicycle
infrastructure connection. In order for this path to serve as a bicycle infrastructure
connection, the width of the path would need to be widened from twelve feet (12’) to fourteen
feet (14’). A condition of approval requires that the twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path
proposed along the north property line be widened to fourteen feet (14’). In order to
accommodate this additional two feet (2’), it would be acceptable to reduce the proposed
eight-foot (8’) landscape strip along the south side of the path to six feet (6’). Revised plans
showing the widened multi-use path shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval at the time of Utility Construction Permit review.
The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of
required off-street vehicle parking spaces. The proposal includes bicycle parking that
exceeds 10% of the provided number of vehicle parking stalls. The proposal includes 158
total parking spaces, ten percent (10%) of those spaces would total 16 spaces. The proposal
includes bicycle parking for up to 36 bicycles, which includes seven (7) secure bicycle racks
(two bicycles each) and 11 lockers (two bicycles each), which exceeds the ten percent (10%)
parking stall standard. Bicycle parking would not be located within 50 feet (50’) of an
entrance to an enclosed building as required by City standard because the proposed core
facilities and security buildings are not for public use. A modification pursuant to RMC 4-
9-250 has been requested to waive this requirement (Exhibit 32) and is approved by this
decision.
G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking.
The City’s development standards do not require a specific number of parking spaces for
transit centers, however, as part of the proposed project a parking lot would be provided. The
proposed parking lot on the site would provide 158 parking spaces (6 Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA] stalls; 5 reserved stalls; 1 electric vehicle (EV) charging stall, and 146
carpool stalls) for the proposed transit center (Exhibit 2).
T3 initially included a parking garage at this location, but Sound Transit Board Resolution
2021-05 (commonly known as Realignment) indefinitely delayed the parking garage in
response to budget shortfalls. However, a future phase could include a parking garage and/or
transit-oriented development (TOD) over the temporary surface parking lot. Currently, Sound
Transit staff does not have the authority to apply for a parking garage entitlement or to surplus
land for TOD.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and hearing examiner conditional use applications as
Type III applications, administrative site plan applications as Type II applications and modifications
as Type I applications. RMC 4- 8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under
“the highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, hearing examiner
site plan, shoreline substantial development permit and street modification applications are subject to
Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), Type III review is subject to hearing and final
decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan/Design District Designations. The subject property is zoned
Commercial Arterial (CA) and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed
Use (CMU) and is in Urban Design District D,
3. Review Criteria/Modification and Lot Line Adjustment Approval. Site plan, hearing examiner
conditional use, lot line adjustment and bicycle/driveway modifications are required of the proposal.
It’s unclear why master plan approval is necessary. The lot line adjustment and modifications are
approved as discussed below.
The proposals under review include a master plan application. The staff report doesn’t identify why
master plan review is required and there is nothing in the record that suggests such review is necessary.
For CA development RMC 4-9-200(B)(1) only requires master plan review for sites over 2.5 acres
slated for residential development or phased review. The proposal doesn’t involve either feature.
Type II Site plan review is required for the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review
for al development within the CA zone. None of the RMC 4-9-200(C)(2) exemptions apply. RMC
4-9-200(D)(2) identifies the criteria for when site plan review is subject to hearing examiner review,
changing its classification from a Type II site plan to a Type III site plan. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(b)
requires Type III review for large scale projects. The proposal doesn’t qualify as large scale under
those parameters so no hearing is required for that reason. RMC 4-9-200(D)(2)(a) requires Type III
review when the Environmental Review Committee determined that there are significant unresolved
concerns raised by the proposal. The staff report doesn’t address this criterion. However, since the
staff report doesn’t label the site plan as a “hearing examiner site plan,” the Environmental Review
Committee presumably did not find any unresolved concerns.
A conditional use permit is required because RMC 4-2-060 requires such a permit for transit centers
in the CA zone.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of
law.
Modification standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The findings and conclusions of Finding
No. 21 and 22 of the staff report are adopted by reference and it is concluded that the proposal meets
the criteria for the street modification identified in Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 3. The driveway and
bicycle parking modifications identified in FOF No. 3 is approved on that basis.
Lot line adjustments are governed by RMC 4-7-060B. Finding No. 24 of the staff report assesses
compliance with RMC 4-7-060B and is adopted by this reference. The lot line adjustment is approved
on that basis.
Master Plan and Hearing Examiner Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. The proposal involves combined site plan and master plan review. As noted in Conclusion of
Law No. 3, there is no apparent reason why master plan review is required of the Applicant. However,
as noted in the criterion quoted above, the same criterion that apply to master plan review also apply to
site plan review, although just at a more generalized level. In this regard an Applicant that establishes
conformance to site plan review establishes conformance to master plan review if the proposal is the
same for both. Master plan review might not be required for the proposal, but since the Applicant meets
the site plan criteria as outlined below, the same proposal also meets the standards for master plan
approval.
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:
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
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
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 161 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 17 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with
Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 18 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
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.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation by
1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this
recommendation are “FOF No. _____.”
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
FOF 6(E), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(D), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(G)
and lighting by FOF 5(C).
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.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(G) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion
quoted above. Natural features are adequately protected as outlined in FOF No. 5(F) and (H).
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;
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.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E) and the driveway modification requests, the
proposal minimizes driveway access to the extent reasonably feasible for a transit center. The
proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as
determined in FOF No. 6(E). No loading or delivery area is proposed. The proposal will be served
by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F).
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.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(D).
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.
10. The criterion is met. The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or
Mt. Rainier as determined in FOF 5B. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met. The proposal adequately protects natural systems for the reasons identified
in FOF No. 5(F) and (H).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. Phasing is not 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(D)(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.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
14. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and
development standards as determined in COL No. 5.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(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.
15. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal as conditioned is
compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure, will not create
significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties and does not create a detrimental
overconcentration of use. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
16. 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(D)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
17. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6G, the site is served by adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
19. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
20. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal as conditioned will not result in any
adverse light, noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(D)(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.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
21. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5G, the project will comply with the City’s
landscaping requirements..
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
Applicant’s applications for master plan review, site plan review, conditional use permit and driveway
and bicycle parking modifications are met by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to
the following conditions of approval:
1. The twelve-foot (12’) wide multi-use path proposed along the north property line shall be
widened to fourteen feet (14’). In order to accommodate this additional two feet (2’), it
would be acceptable to reduce the proposed eight-foot (8’) landscape strip along the south
side of the path to six feet (6’). Revised plans showing the widened multi-use path shall be
submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of
Utility Construction Permit review.
2. Payment for any tree credits shall be received prior to the issuance of the Civil Construction
Permit.
3. The design of the gantry wrap shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to the issuance of a building permit. The design of the charging gantry wrap will screen
from public view the equipment within it, and will be cohesive with the overall site design.
4. Details for the proposed benches shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager
for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. The design of the
benches shall be made of durable and vandal- and weather- resistant materials that do not
block pedestrian access, and will be cohesive with the overall site design.
5. A materials board shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review
and approval at the time of Building Permit application. The materials chosen for the core
buildings and bus island canopies will be cohesive with the overall project design.
6. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted
Geotechnical Report, prepared by WSP, dated March 21, 2022 or future addenda.
7. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction plans and the
building permit plans to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The
geotechnical engineer shall provide his/her seal on the following plans that are based on
geotechnical engineering recommendations: structural engineering drawings and typical section
drawings which include the pavement sections and excavation requirements.
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
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
Decision issued October 29, 2024.
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.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
South Renton Transit Center and Roadway
Improvements
Project Number:
LUA24-000233, SA-M, SA-H, CU-H, LLA, MOD, MOD
Date of Hearing
October 15, 2024
Staff Contact
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Gary Yao, Sound Transit
401 S Jackson St
Seattle, WA 98104
Project Location
750 Rainier Ave S (APNs
1923059074, 1923059035,
1923059068, 1923059063, and
a portion of and 1923059032)
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-39: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 40: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 41: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 42: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibit 43:
Exhibit 44:
Exhibit 45:
Exhibit 46:
Exhibit 47:
Exhibit 48:
Exhibit 49:
Applicant expert resumes
Project History
Notice of Application
Affidavit of public sign
Title Report
Sound Transit Resolution R2021-05
Background on Parking Garage