HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_with_Exhibits_191218DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Project Location Map
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
Decision: APPROVED APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DENIED
Report Date: December 18, 2019
Project File Number: PR15-000009
Project Name: Sunset Oaks
Land Use File Number: LUA19-000274, SA-A
Project Manager: Matt Herrera, Senior Planner
Owner: Mark Gropper, Renton Housing Authority, 2900 NE 10th St., Renton, WA 98056
Applicant/Contact: Poppi S Handy, Third Place Design Co-operative, 304 Alaskan Way S., Suite 301,
Seattle, WA 98104
Project Location: 1073 Harrington Ave NE
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan review, minor modification to the
approved Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan, concurrence with the Sunset
Area Planned Action EIS, and two (2) modifications to the development regulations for
a 60 unit multifamily project located at 1073 Harrington Ave NE. The subject property
is 45,819 square feet (1.05 acres) and located in a Commercial Mixed Use land use
designation and Center Village zoning classification. The subject property is referred
to as master plan site 14,16/17 Sunset Oaks within the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Master Plan (LUA14-001475). The proposed 60 multifamily units would result in
approximately 57 dwelling units per net acre. Vehicle access to the site would be via
a new alley located on the northern portion of the property providing access to
Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE. The applicant proposes to construct a
detention tank and install permeable pavement throughout the site to capture
drainage prior to discharge into the City’s stormwater system. The applicant has
requested modifications related to street frontage improvement standards and refuse
and recycling. No onsite critical areas are identified on the City's mapping system.
Site Area: 1.05 acres
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
B. EXHIBITS:
Exhibits 1-14 As shown in the Environmental Review Committee Memorandum
Exhibit 15: Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan LUA14-001475
Exhibit 16: Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance 5813
Exhibit 17: Sunset Area Planned Action EIS
Exhibit 18: Trash Enclosure Elevations
Exhibit 19: Urban Design District Report
Exhibit 20: Advisory Notes
Exhibit 21: Concurrency Test
C. GENERAL INFORMATION:
1. Owner(s) of Record: Mark Gropper, Renton Housing Authority, 2900 NE 10th
St., Renton, WA 98056
2. Zoning Classification: Center Village (CV)
Urban Design District ‘D’
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)
4. Existing Site Use: Vacant
5. Critical Areas: None
6. Neighborhood Characteristics:
a. North: Multi-family residential and R-14 zone
b. East: Multi-family residential and CV zone
c. South: Sunset Neighborhood Park and CV zone
d. West: Multi-family residential/vacant and R-14 and CV zones
7. Site Area: 1.05 acres
D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015
Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015
Epstein Annexation N/A 1246 04/16/1946
Sunset Area Planned Action EIS LUA10-052 N/A 06/06/2011
Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Master Site Plan
LUA14-001475 N/A 01/14/2015
Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance
(Revised)
N/A 5813 08/08/2016
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 3 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
E. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Existing Utilities
a. Water: Water service will be provided by the City of Renton. There are existing water mains in the
following locations:
i. 12-inch main located in Glenwood Ave NE that can deliver a maximum total flow
capacity of 3,800 gallons per minute (gpm).
ii. 12-inch main located in Sunset Lane/NE 10th St that can deliver a maximum total flow
capacity of 4,900 gpm.
iii. 12-inch main located in Harrington Ave NE that can deliver a maximum total flow
capacity of 4,900 gpm.
b. Sewer: Sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. There are existing sewer mains in the
following locations:
i. 8-inch concrete non-reinforced gravity main located in Glennwood Ave NE.
ii. 8-inch concrete non-reinforced gravity main located in Harrington Ave NE.
iii. 12-inch PVC gravity main located in Sunset Lane/NE 10th St.
c. Surface/Storm Water: There are existing storm drainage systems in Harrington Ave NE, NE 10th St.,
and Glennwood Ave NE. No facilities are located on the subject property . Runoff from the site
currently sheet flows southwest into the street and catch basin in Glennwood Ave NE.
2. Streets: The subject property abuts Glennwood Ave NE, Harrington Ave NE, and Sunset Lane/NE 10th St.
All three streets are classified as residential streets. Harrington Ave NE contains an existing right-of-way
(ROW) 60-feet of width and Glennwood Ave NE and NE 10th St contains and existing ROW width of 50-
feet.
3. Fire Protection: Renton Regional Fire Authority (RRFA)
F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-060: Zoning Use Table – Uses Allowed in the Zoning Designations
c. Section 4-2-120A: Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations (CN,CV, and CA)
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts
a. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Districts
3. Chapter 4 City-Wide Property Development Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards
b. Section 4-6-070: Transportation Concurrency Requirements
5. Chapter 11 Chapter 8 Permits – General and Appeals
6. Chapter 9 Permits – Specific
a. Section 4-9-070: Environmental Review Procedures
b. Section 4-9-200: Master Plan and Site Plan Review
7. Definitions
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 4 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
2. Transportation Element
3. Housing and Human Services Element
H. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF):
1. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
November 10, 2019 and determined the application complete on November 13, 2019. The project
complies with the 120-day review period.
2. The project site is located 1073 Harrington Ave NE.
3. The project site is currently vacant.
4. Access to the site would be provided via a new alley along the north portion of the property extending
from Harrington Ave NE to Glennwood Ave NE
5. The property is located within the Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use
designation.
6. The site is located within the Center Village (CV) zoning classification.
7. There are approximately seven (7) trees located on-site, of which the applicant is proposing to retain a
total of one (1) tree. Staff has recommended the applicant attempt to retain five (5) additional trees along
the Glennwood Ave NE frontage (see FOF 17 Tree Retention).
8. No critical areas are mapped on the site.
9. Approximately 200 cubic yards of fill is proposed to be brought into the site.
10. The applicant is proposing to begin construction in Spring 2020 and last for approximately 14 months.
11. Staff received no public or agency comment letters.
12. The subject property is referred to as the Sunset Park West Townhomes, Harrington Park, and Sunset
Oaks (sites E, 14,16/17) within the approved Renton Sunset Redevelopment Master Site Plan (Exhibit 15)
and is currently owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). The total units allocated for the site was
19 however as a part of a reallocation of units within the master site plan, the subject property now has
been assigned 62 total dwelling units following a minor modification to the plan issued concurrently
with this decision.
13. The subject property is located within the Sunset Planned Action Area where a Planned Action
Ordinance (Ord. 5813) (Exhibit 16) was adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) for redevelopment of the Highlands Area. The Final EIS document was issued April 1, 2011
(Exhibit 17).
14. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the Sunset Oaks Site Plan application and issued a
Concurrence Memo designating the proposal a planned action (Exhibit 1) and therefore the project
would not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further
environmental review pursuant to SEPA.
15. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 5 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and
the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
16. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) on the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of the CMU designation is to allow residential uses as part of
mixed-use developments, and support new office and commercial development that is more intensive
than what exists to create a vibrant district and increase employment opportunities. The intention of this
designation is to transform strip commercial development into business districts through the
intensification of uses and with cohesive site planning, landscaping, signage, circulation, parking, and the
provision of public amenity features. The proposal is compliant with the following development standards
if all conditions of approval are met:
Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Goal L-H: Plan for high-quality residential growth that supports transit by providing
urban densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good health and physical
activity, builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating
both built amenities and natural features.
Goal L-I: Utilize multiple strategies to accommodate residential growth, including:
Development of new single-family neighborhoods on large tracts of land outside
the City Center,
Development of new multi-family and mixed-use in the City Center and in the
Residential High Density and Commercial Mixed Use designations, and
Infill development on vacant and underutilized land in established neighborhoods
and multi-family areas.
Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new
development is designed to be functional and attractive.
Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas
and neighborhoods through quality design and development.
Policy L-48: Address privacy and quality of life for existing residents by considering
scale and context in infill project design.
Policy L-49: Maintain existing, and encourage the creation of additional, places and
events throughout the community where people can gather and interact. Allow for
flexibility in public gathering places to encourage place-making efforts and activities.
Policy L-51: Include human-scale features such as pedestrian pathways, quality
landscaping, and public spaces that have discernible edges, entries, and borders to
create a distinctive sense of place in neighborhoods, commercial areas, and centers.
Policy L-52: Orient buildings in developments toward the street or a common area,
rather than toward parking lots.
Policy L-55: Preserve natural landforms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural
slopes, and scenic areas that contribute to the City’s identity, preserve property values,
and visually define the community and neighborhoods.
Policy L-56: Complement the built environment with landscaping using native,
naturalized, and ornamental plantings that are appropriate for the situation and
circumstance and provide for respite, recreation, and sun/shade.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 6 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Policy T-26: Ensure provision of safe and convenient storage and parking facilities for
bicyclists.
Policy HHS-3: Work with other jurisdictions and organizations, including the Renton
Housing Authority and non-profit housing developers, to address the need for housing
to be affordable to very low-income households. This housing should focus on
accessibility, mobility, and proximity to social services.
Goal HHS-B: Ensure a variety of housing types are available within the City that meet
the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.
17. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The purpose of the Center Village Zone (CV) is to provide an
opportunity for concentrated mixed-use residential and commercial redevelopment designed to urban
rather than suburban development standards that supports transit-oriented development and pedestrian
activity. Use allowances promote commercial and retail development opportunities for residents to shop
locally. Uses and standards allow complementary, high-density residential development, and discourage
garden-style, multi-family development. The proposal is compliant with the following development
standards, as outlined in RMC 4-2-120.A, if all conditions of approval are met:
Compliance CV Zone Develop Standards and Analysis
Use: The applicant proposes to construct 60 multifamily attached dwelling units in
three buildings.
Staff Comment: Attached Dwellings – Flats are permitted in the CV zone. Standalone
residential is permitted in this area of the CV zone as the subject property is not abutting
NE Sunset Blvd east of Harrington Ave NE.
Density: The density range required in the CV zone is a minimum of 20.0 dwelling units
per net acre to a maximum 80 dwelling units per net acre. Assisted living bonus: 1.5
times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of RMC 4-9-065. Net
density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas intended for public
right-of-way, and private access easements from the gross site area.
Staff Comment: The proposed 60 multifamily dwellings would result in approximately
57 dwelling units per net acres following the frontage dedication along Glennwood Ave
NE that would provide residential access street improvements. The net density is within
the parameters permitted within the CV zone. Additionally, the site has been allocated
62 dwelling units as part of the revised Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master
Plan.
N/A
Lot Dimensions: For lots created after Nov. 10, 2004, the minimum lot size required in
the CV zone is 25,000 sq. ft. There are no minimum lot width or depth requirements.
Staff Comment: The existing three (3) lots on the subject property were created previous
to November 10, 2004 and the applicant has not proposed to further subdivide the
property resulting in new lots.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Setbacks: The minimum front yard setback is 15 ft. The minimum setback may be
reduced to 0 ft. through the site plan review process, provided blank walls are not
located within the reduced setback. A maximum front yard setback of 20 ft. is required.
The minimum secondary front setback is 15 ft. The minimum setback may be reduced
to 0 ft. through the site plan review process, provided blank walls are not located within
the reduced setback. The maximum secondary front yard setback is 20 feet. There are
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 7 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
no minimum side or rear yard setbacks, except 15 ft. if the lot abuts or is adjacent to a
lot zoned residential.
Staff Comment: The subject property contains frontages on Harrington Ave NE, NE 10th
St., and Glennwood Ave NE resulting in three (3) front yards. As shown on the Site Plan
(Exhibit 3), Building B is setback 15-feet from Harrington Ave NE and NE Sunset
Lane/10th St. Building C is setback 15-feet from Harrington Ave NE.
It is unclear whether Buildings A and B are setback 15-feet from Glennwood Ave NE as
the setback measurement as shown on the Site Plan includes the street’s future five (5)
foot wide sidewalk which would be within the ROW and there would be an approximate
4.5-foot dedication. Modulations along the buildings west façade encroach into the Site
Plan identified 15-foot setback measurement approximately four (4) feet on the
southwest corner of the parking structure and approximately one (1) foot south of the
parking structure. The remainder of the building would meet the 15-foot setback if the
measurement on the Site Plan is correct. If the measurement on the Site Plan is correct,
the proposed reduced setbacks are minor and are for portions of the building’s
modulations, which provide overall bulk reduction and architectural interest to the
building. However prior to approving any minor setback encroachments reflected
above, the applicant shall clarify where the 15-foot setback is being measured from as
including the sidewalk in the measurement is incorrect. Therefore staff recommends as
a condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised Site Plan with the civil
construction permit that provides an accurate 15-foot front yard setback measurement
from the dedicated ROW along Glennwood Ave NE (following dedication) and Buildings
A and B. The buildings shall be setback at least 15-feet from the ROW with the exception
of limited and nominal encroachments for the modulations as shown on the Site Plan
and any meander needed for the sidewalk to retain the existing Douglas Firs along the
street frontage. The revised Site Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
The applicant will construct a public alley along the interior lot line on the northern
portion of the property resulting in a ROW separating the subject property from the R-
14 zoned properties. The subject property will no longer abut the R-14 zone and
therefore no rear yard setbacks would apply.
Building Standards: The CV zone has a maximum building coverage 65% of total lot
area or 75% if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking
garage. The maximum building height permitted is 50 ft., except 70 ft. if the ground
floor of the building is in commercial use.
Staff Comment: The subject would provide a combination of structured parking and
surface parking therefore the proposal would be limited to 65-percent. The applicant
proposes a total building coverage of 34-percent for the subject property meeting the
coverage limitation. The highest point for any of the three (3) structures is 38-feet.
See also
FOF 18 Design
District
Standards:
Primary
Entries
Building Orientation: Commercial and civic uses shall provide entry features on all
sides of a building facing a public right-of-way or parking lot. Except for unit lot
subdivisions, the front entry of residential only uses shall be oriented to a public street.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Elevations (Exhibit 6), Building A contains a front entry
oriented to Glennwood Ave NE, Building B contains a front entry along NE 10th St., and
Building C contains a front entry along Harrington Ave NE. Refer to FOF 18 Design
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 8 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
District Standards: Primary Entries for conditions of approval to ensure those entries
are prominent.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Landscaping: The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot
landscape strip along all public street frontages. Additional minimum planting strip
widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street
development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover,
are to be located in this area when present. Spacing standards shall be as stipulated by
the Department of Community and Economic Development, provided there shall be a
minimum of one street tree planted per address. Any additional undeveloped right-of-
way areas shall be landscaped unless otherwise determined by the Administrator.
All parking lots shall have perimeter landscaping as follows:
Such landscaping shall be at least ten feet (10') in width as measured from the street
right-of-way. Standards for planting shall be as follows:
Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh) for multi-
family, commercial, and industrial uses at an average minimum rate of one
tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage.
Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped
area. Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous.
Ground cover in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%)
coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation.
Surface parking lots with between 15 and 50 spaces shall provide 15 sf of landscaping
per parking space. Perimeter parking lot landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width,
interior parking lot landscaped areas shall have minimum dimensions of 8 feet (8’) by
12 feet (12’).
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Conceptual Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 4) with
the land use application. Street frontage landscaping widths are identified on the plan
and meet the minimum 10-foot width requirement. 15-feet is provided along
Harrington Ave NE and NE 10th St and 10-feet is shown on Glennwood Ave NE. Widths
may vary along Glennwood Ave NE as the applicant will be required to retain existing
trees in the ROW (see FOF 17 Tree Retention)resulting in a meander in the sidewalk and
planter strip.
The applicant would be required to improve ROW frontages that include planter strips
along Harrington Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE. Sunset Lane/NE 10th St. was recently
improved as part of a capital improvement and the newly planted parking strip will
remain. Glennwood Ave NE is a residential access street and will require an 8-foot wide
planter. As there are existing trees within the ROW that will be retained, the alignment
of the new sidewalk and planter will be determined during the civil construction design
and permit review. Harrington Ave NE is identified as a Green Connection in the Sunset
Area Planned Action EIS. The 8-foot wide planter will be constructed utilizing Low
Impact Development methods to capture and treat stormwater along the street.
Species planting and design will be determined during civil construction design and
permit review.
The applicant has proposed 26 surface parking spaces located behind the proposed
buildings and obscured from ROW view. The surface parking would require a minimum
of 390 square feet of interior parking lot landscaping (26 spaces x 15sf=390sf) however
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 9 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
it is unclear on the Conceptual Landscape Plan whether the minimum parking lot
landscaping is met and if the planter areas meet the minimum 8-foot x 12-foot
dimension. Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicant
provide clear dimensional measurements and square footage calculations of interior
parking lot landscaping on the Detailed Landscaping Plan to be submitted with the civil
construction permit application. Areas of parking lot landscaping that do not meet the
8-foot by 12-foot dimension will not be credited with meeting the minimum
requirement. The Detailed Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
The applicant’s Conceptual Landscape Plan provides some individual tree species with
areas noted for street frontage landscaping and internal lot landscaping. The applicant
will be required to submit a final Detailed Landscape Plan with the civil construction
permit application that contains the submittal requirement items listed in RMC 4-8-
120D.12: Landscaping Plan, Detailed.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Tree Retention: The City’s adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (4-
4-130) require the retention of 10 percent of trees in a residential development.
Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order:
Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy;
significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); significant trees adjacent
to critical areas and their associated buffers; and significant trees over sixty feet (60')
in height or greater than eighteen inches ( 18") caliper.
Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved;
other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and other significant non-native
trees.
Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have
been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/ or
cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a critical
area or its buffer.
Staff Comment: The applicant has submitted an arborist report prepared by Superior
NW Enterprises, dated July 23, 2019 (Exhibit 11). The report provided conditions for the
subject property’s 10 onsite trees and determined seven (7) of those trees to be
significant. The applicant has proposed to retain one (1) 28-inch diameter Douglas Fir
tree (identified as Tree #8) in the center of the site. The arborist report indicates five (5)
Douglas Fir trees (Trees 2-6) that are in fair condition with some historic pruning done
for overhead utilities and ivy growing up the trunks along the site western frontage of
Glennwood Ave NE. Following street frontage dedication, trees 3, 5, and 6 will be
located in ROW.
While the applicant has proposed to retain the required 10-percent of significant trees
for the proposal, the general landscaping standards (RMC 4-4-070G.3) require the
redevelopment of properties to retain existing trees when possible and minimize the
impact of tree loss during development. Trees 2-6 are mature Douglas Fir trees, three
(3) of which would be located within the ROW. The City finds value in retaining mature
trees in and around the ROW. Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval,
in addition to retaining Tree #8, the applicant shall also attempt to retain Trees 2-6 via
a meandering sidewalk and planter strip (if needed) along the site’s Glennwood Ave NE
frontage. The applicant shall submit a revised arborist report that provides
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 10 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
recommendations for the well-being of all retained trees that also includes the
appropriate ongoing arborist monitoring visits and tree protection techniques,
including temporary irrigation, during and post construction to ensure the safety and
vitality of the trees. The revised arborist report shall be submitted with the civil
construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
Parking: Residential Uses: Required parking shall be located underground or under
building (on the first floor of the structure), or in an attached or detached structure.
Any additional parking may not be located between the building and public street
unless located within a structured parking garage.
Commercial Uses: Parking may not be located between the building and the public
street unless located within a structured parking garage.
Mixed Use: Joint parking is required subject to RMC 4-4-080.E.3.
Parking regulations require that a minimum of one (1) space for every four (4) attached
dwellings for low income residents and a maximum of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit.
Standard parking stall dimensions are 9 feet by 20 feet, compact stall dimensions are 8
½ feet by 16 feet.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s Site Plan (Exhibit 3) provides a total of 41 parking
spaces or 0.68 spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed parking meets the 0.25 spaces
per dwelling unit minimum. The minimum required parking spaces for the 60 dwelling
unit proposal would equal 15 parking spaces, all of which would be required to be
located underground or under the building (on the first floor of the structure), or in an
attached or detached structure. The applicant has proposed to locate 15 parking spaces
within the first floor of Building B. Remaining spaces would be located behind buildings
A and C obscured from ROW view with access taken from the newly constructed alley
along the north side of the subject property.
The applicant has proposed eight (8) compact surface parking spaces or approximately
19.5 percent of the total spaces thereby meeting the 30-percent maximum. Structured
parking spaces are 7.5-feet x 15-feet and standard surface parking spaces are
dimensioned at or have space to provide 9-foot x 20-foot spaces as the west drive aisle
is dimensioned at 26-feet wide instead of the standard 24-foot width. Compact spaces
are dimensioned at 8.5-feet x 16-feet.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Bicycle Parking: One-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per one dwelling unit.
Staff Comment: The applicant would be required to provide 30 bicycle parking spaces
for the 60 dwelling unit development. As shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3), 31 parking
spaces are proposed with 16 spaces located within the parking structure of Building B,
six (6) spaces located in the entry lobby of Building A, six (6) spaces located in the entry
lobby of Building C, and three (3) spaces located outside in the open space area north
of Building B. It is unclear on the submitted documents how the bicycle parking would
meet the location and access standards, therefore staff recommends as a condition of
approval, the applicant submit detail sheets of the bicycle parking locations that
identify security, minimum space and maneuverability, rack connections to ground, and
other identified applicable RMC bicycle parking standards for attached dwelling units.
The bicycle parking detail sheets shall be submitted with the building permit application
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 11 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Screening: All on-site surface mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public
view. Screening shall consist of equipment cabinets enclosing the utility equipment,
solid fencing or a wall of a height at least as high as the equipment it screens, or a
landscaped visual barrier allowing for reasonable access to equipment. Equipment
cabinets, fencing, and walls shall be made of materials and/or colors compatible with
building materials. All operating equipment located on the roof of any building shall be
enclosed so as to be screened from public view.
Staff Comment: The Storm Drainage and Utility Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet C4.0) does not
identify any surface mounted or rooftop utility equipment for the development.
Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised
Utility Plan with the civil construction permit application and identify all surface
mounted utility equipment. Surface mounted equipment should not be located within
the common open space amenity areas. Any surface mounted equipment located
between the building and street should be located outside of the 15-foot building
setback area. The screening of the equipment shall be shown on the Detailed
Landscaping Plan submitted with the civil construction permit application for review
and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
Additionally, staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a detail
sheet with the building permit application that provides screening of roof top
mechanical equipment. The screening shall be integrated into the design of the building
and/or be constructed of materials consistent and complimentary to the building’s
architecture. The rooftop screening detail sheet shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
See also FOF
20
Modification
Refuse and Recycling: In multi-family developments, a minimum of one and one-half
(1-1/2) square feet per dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for
recyclables deposit areas, except where the development is participating in a City-
sponsored program in which individual recycling bins are used for curbside collection.
A minimum of three (3) square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse
deposit areas. A total minimum area of eighty (80) square feet shall be provided for
refuse and recyclables deposit areas. There shall be a minimum of one refuse and
recyclables deposit area/collection point for each project. There shall be at least one
deposit area/collection point for every thirty (30) dwelling units. Outdoor refuse and
recyclables deposit areas and collection points shall not be located within fifty feet (50')
of a lot zoned residential, except by approval through the site development plan review
process.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s site plan provides garbage and recycling area in the
north central portion of the subject property abutting the alley. The 60 dwelling units
would require a minimum refuse and recycling area of 270 square feet. The applicant
has indicated on the site plan that approximately 323 square feet would be provided.
See FOF 20 Modification for the proposed use of one deposit area for the 60 dwelling
units.
The proposed refuse and garbage enclosure would be located approximately 17-feet
from the northern Residential-14 zoned property. Staff recommends approval of the
reduced setback as allowed per RMC 4-4-090C.3. The location of the enclosure would
be separated from the residential zone via new public alley to be constructed by the
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 12 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
applicant. The location of the enclosure provides convenient access to the
refuse/recycle hauler as it abuts the alley. The location results in fewer turning
movements in and less time the truck needs to be onsite. Additionally, as the northern
properties redevelop in the future, the alley will extend northward and refuse/recycle
haulers will utilize the alley for service pick-up for the block. Finally, the refuse/recycle
enclosure as shown on the Elevation Plans (Exhibit 6) is aesthetically appealing and
constructed of materials consistent with the architectural design of the site’s future
buildings.
The enclosure contains a vertical roof clearance height of 11-feet and combined gate
opening of approximately 20-feet. A shed roof provides weather protection of the bin
storage area. The proposed location would not result in trucks obstructing pedestrian
or vehicle traffic onsite as the truck would be able to service the enclosure within the
public alley.
Compliance
not yet
determined
Fences and Retaining Walls: A maximum of eight feet (8') anywhere on the lot provided
the fence, retaining wall or hedge does not stand in or in front of any required
landscaping or pose a traffic vision hazard.
There shall be a minimum three-foot (3') landscaped setback at the base of retaining
walls abutting public rights-of-way.
Staff Comment: A retaining wall is noted on the submitted Site Plan (Exhibit 3) along
the north perimeter of the subject property and near the center of the property
surrounding the 28-inch caliper Douglas Fir tree to be retained. The proposed wall is not
shown on any other plan sheet and no other details of the wall were provided with the
application. Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant
submit a revised Grading Plan and provide detail sheets of the proposed retaining walls
with the civil construction permit application. As the proposed wall will be in close
proximity to the retained Douglas Fir tree, the applicant shall also submit a revised
arborist report that provides recommendations and best practices for constructing the
wall in and around the critical root zone of the tree. The revised plans, arborist report,
and detail sheet shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
18. Urban Design Standards: The project site is located within Design District ‘D’. The following table contains
project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District ‘D’ Standards and
guidelines, as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E:
Compliance Design District Guideline and Standard Analysis
1. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision
of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy
visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity.
a. Building Location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways. To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 13 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas,
and other land uses; and increase privacy for residential uses.
Guidelines: Developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well
as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities while working to create a pedestrian oriented
environment. Lots shall be configured to encourage variety and so that natural light is available to
buildings and open space. The privacy of individuals in residential uses shall be provided for.
Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun
exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be
considered when siting structures.
Staff Comment: The scale of the three (3) story structures and their location on the
site allows solar exposure during the spring, summer, and early fall to the open space
within the center of the site. The three (3) story structures and their location would
also limit shadow impacts to the abutting north properties.
Standard: Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the
sidewalk.
Staff Comment: All three buildings contain orientation to the street with pedestrian
pathway connections to their respective entrances.
Standard: The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped
pedestrian-only courtyard.
Staff Comment: As shown on the elevation sheets (Exhibit 6) all three buildings are
oriented to their respective street frontages.
Standard: Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be:
a. Set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature
substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building; or
b. Have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for residents’
privacy.
Staff Comment: As shown on the on the Conceptual Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 4), the
buildings will be setback a minimum of 10-feet and contain landscaping between the
building and sidewalk. The 10-foot setback may be reduced in some areas depending
on the location of the meandering sidewalk for the retention of several Douglas Fir
trees along the Glennwood Ave NE frontage (see FOF 17 Tree Retention). Street
frontage landscaping consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover will be required
along those areas between the buildings and sidewalk with plantings reviewed with
the civil construction permit application.
b. Building Entries:
Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Guidelines: Primary entries shall face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for social
interaction. All entries shall include features that make them easily identifiable while reflecting the
architectural character of the building. The primary entry shall be the most visually prominent entry.
Pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk, parking lots, and/or other areas shall be provided
and shall enhance the overall quality of the pedestrian experience on the site.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 14 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a
street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public
sidewalk, and include human-scale elements.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3), all three buildings contain the
primary entrance located on the façade facing the street and connected by a walkway
to the public sidewalk. The entrance for Building B is prominent as it is located in the
center of the structure, contains a distinct roof extension, contains a wide opening
entering to a covered plaza, varied cladding and color, and promenade width pedestrian
connection leading to Sunset Lane/NE 10th St and the adjacent park.
With the exception of an entry canopy extending approximately 6-feet from the
building, entrances to Buildings A and C do not contain the prominence that is
commensurate to the scale of their respective buildings. Color variation in and around
the entry door, planters, additional sidelight window, and signage are needed to
provide a clear distinction of where the main entrance is located. Therefore staff
recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit revised Elevation Plans
and other applicable plans with the building permit application that provides additional
primary entrance features that will result in a prominent street entry for Buildings A and
C. Features such as additional articulation and varied cladding in and around the main
entry, planters, additional sidelight, lighting, and/or other aesthetic enhancements
acceptable to the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised Elevation Plans and
other applicable plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by
incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry
doors, and/or ornamental lighting.
Staff Comment: See discussion above.
Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies,
architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather
protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide (illustration below). Buildings
that are taller than thirty feet (30') in height shall also ensure that the weather
protection is proportional to the distance above ground level.
Staff Comment: Buildings A and C contain canopies extending approximately 6-feet
from the building and approximately 9-feet in width. Building B contains a covered entry
plaza. See discussion above and lighting comments regarding additional building entry
recommended conditions of approval.
Standard: Building entries from a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to
the street.
Staff Comment: Entries from parking lot are located interior to the project, not visible
from ROW, and subordinate to the street entries.
Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a
street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features
should be incorporated.
Staff Comment: See initial primary entrance discussion above.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 15 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by
providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate
landscaping.
Staff Comment: All three (3) buildings contain their own separate street frontage with
their own pedestrian connection to their respective street. As shown on the Site Plan
(Exhibit 3) internal walkways, pedestrian connections through the parking lot, and
pedestrian courtyard provide a network of pathways with landscaping are provided
interior to the site.
N/A
Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street
shall include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or
entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the
street.
Staff Comment: Not applicable. Entries into units are via an internal stair and corridor.
c. Transition to Surrounding Development:
Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton’s long-established,
existing neighborhoods are preserved.
Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition where
new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale.
Standard: At least one of the following design elements shall be used to promote a
transition to surrounding uses:
1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with
the surrounding planned and existing land use forms; or
2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller
increments; or
3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and
transition with existing development.
Additionally, the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a
building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight
reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards.
Staff Comment: All three (3) buildings as shown on the Rendering and Elevation Plans
(Exhibits 5 and 6) contain significant modulations that reduce their bulk. Shed roof
forms provide architectural interest to upper story. The overall scale and height of the
buildings are commensurate to other multifamily buildings in the neighborhood as well
as the future buildings as anticipated by the master plan.
d. Service Element Location and Design:
Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading
docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and
other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with landscaping
and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials. Service areas not adjacent to streets,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 16 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
pathways, or pedestrian-oriented spaces are encouraged to implement vegetative screening in addition
to or as part of service enclosures.
Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on
the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated
and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant
use.
Staff Comment: The refuse and recycling enclosure is located along the alley for
convenience to haulers and separated from pedestrian areas.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and
screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Trash Enclosure Elevations (Exhibit 18), the structure
is enclosed on three (3) sides with sand blasted CMU and green screens. Gate openings
are comprised of wood and shed roof provides cover. Self-closing doors were not
identified on the plan therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval, the
applicant submit revised Refuse and Recycling Plans with the building permit
application that provides details for self-closing gates or other method/mechanism to
ensure the gates are unable to be left open unattended. The revised plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
Standard: Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or
some combination of the three (3).
Staff Comment: See comment above.
N/A
Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented
space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of
such facility.
Staff Comment: Not applicable. The enclosure is located along the alley.
e. Gateways:
Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City, special design features
and architectural elements at gateways should be provided. While gateways should be distinctive
within the context of the district, they should also be compatible with the district in form and scale.
Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and
other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with landscaping
and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials.
N/A
Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually
prominent features.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
N/A
Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians
and vehicles.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
N/A Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two (2) or more of the following:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 17 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
a. Public art;
b. Special landscape treatment;
c. Open space/plaza;
d. Landmark building form;
e. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards;
f. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo);
g. Neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs do not qualify).
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
2. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate
various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and
other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in
reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining
contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize
the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the
district.
a. Surface Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in
back of buildings.
Guidelines: Surface parking shall be located and designed so as to reduce the visual impact of the
parking area and associated vehicles. Large areas of surface parking shall also be designed to
accommodate future infill development.
Standard: Parking shall be located so that no surface parking is located between:
a. A building and the front property line; and/or
b. A building and the side property line (when on a corner lot).
Staff Comment: Proposed surface parking would be located behind the buildings and
obscured from ROW view.
Standard: Parking shall be located so that it is screened from surrounding streets by
buildings, landscaping, and/or gateway features as dictated by location.
Staff Comment: See comment above.
b. Structured Parking Garages:
Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of
structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the
overall impact of parking garages.
Guidelines: Parking garages shall not dominate the streetscape; they shall be designed to be
complementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not
subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, and/or details to the primary building(s)
should be used to enhance garages.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 18 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
N/A
Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses
along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building
frontage width.
Staff Comment: Structured parking for the residential only development would be on
the first floor of Building B and obscured from view by dwelling units along the NE 10th
St, Harrington Ave NE, and Glennwood Ave NE frontages.
N/A
Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. The
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development may
approve parking structures that do not feature a pedestrian orientation in limited
circumstances. If allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the
sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a
combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback
shall be increased to ten feet (10') when abutting a primary arterial and/or minor
arterial.
Staff Comment: Not applicable. See comment above.
Standard: Public facing facades shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or
other architectural elements and/or materials.
Staff Comment: Public facing facades contain ground floor dwelling units.
Standard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away from the primary
street, to either the side or rear of the building.
Staff Comment: Entry to the garage is from the alley and then driveway behind the
buildings on the site.
Standard: Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view
with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a
combination of treatments.
Staff Comment: The at-grade parking garage is screened by ground floor dwelling units.
N/A
Standard: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can
successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment
meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the
setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated
with the architectural design of the building:
a. Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars);
b. Decorative artwork;
c. Display windows;
d. Brick, tile, or stone;
e. Pre-cast decorative panels;
f. Vine-covered trellis;
g. Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or
h. Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 19 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
c. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets.
Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking lots shall not impede or interrupt
pedestrian mobility. The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access on sidewalks shall be minimized.
Standard: Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not
available, access shall occur at side streets.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3), access to the site would be from
a new public alley constructed along the northern perimeter of the subject property
resulting in only two (2) curb cuts along the three (3) sided frontage.
Standard: The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized for vehicular
access purposes, so that pedestrian circulation along the sidewalk is minimally
impeded.
Staff Comment: See comment above.
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by
creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building
entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to
walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and
promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular
traffic.
a. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance
the pedestrian environment.
Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects.
Sidewalks and/or pathways shall be provided and shall provide safe access to buildings from parking
areas. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of connectivity
and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shall be easily identifiable to
pedestrians and drivers.
Standard: A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and
connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and
abutting properties shall be provided.
a. Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety.
b. Pathways shall be an all-weather or appropriate permeable walking surface
material, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is
appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the
design of the development.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan, pedestrian pathways are located from
building entries to public sidewalk. A separate pathway transects the site from east to
west and connections run north/south through the surface parking lot. Pathways also
meet in the middle of the site in the pedestrian courtyard surrounding the Douglas Fir
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 20 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
tree and covered plaza under Building B. Pathways are constructed of permeable
concrete and the plaza area is constructed of permeable pavers as indicated on the
Paving and Grading Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet 3.0).
Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by
material or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting
paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be
perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty
feet (150') apart.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Paving and Grading Plan, the surface parking lot is
comprised of permeable pavers and the pedestrian pathways within the lot would
contrast with the pavers with permeable concrete.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically:
a. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings
100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks
at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum
unobstructed walking surface.
b. Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a
hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be
no smaller than five feet (5') and no greater than twelve feet (12').
c. For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate the anticipated number of users.
Staff Comment: Walkways within the site are at least five (5) feet in width with the
exception of a portion of walkway on the western portion of the property that would be
three (3) feet and areas near the rear of Building B shown at 4’8”. It is unclear the
purpose of the reduced width pathways, therefore staff recommends as a condition of
approval, the applicant submit a revised Site Plan with the civil construction permit that
provides a minimum pedestrian width of five (5) feet within the site with the exception
of those areas that need to be reduced for tree retention or other reason(s) acceptable
to the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised Site Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
N/A Standard: Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided.
Standard: Permeable pavement pedestrian circulation features shall be used where
feasible, consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual.
Staff Comment: All paving within the development are proposed to be permeable.
b. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and
comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of year-
round activities, under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of projects.
Amenities that encourage pedestrian use and enhance the pedestrian experience shall be included.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 21 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, particularly at building
entrances, in publicly accessible spaces and at facades along streets, shall be provided.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan and Conceptual Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 3
and 4), ground level landscaping would be provided along the building foundation and
between the buildings and sidewalks, however it is unclear if any architectural
pedestrian elements such as above ground planters, seating, and other site furniture
would be provided in and around the building entrances and open space. Therefore staff
recommends as a condition of approval the applicant submit a pedestrian amenities
exhibit with the civil construction permit that provides planters, seating, and/or other
outdoor site furniture that enhances the building entries and open space areas. The
pedestrian amenities exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: Amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters,
fountains, and public art shall be provided.
a. Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant
materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over
an extended period of time.
b. Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to
public spaces or building entrances.
Staff Comment: See discussion above.
Compliant
with the
guidelines
Standard: Pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees,
canopies, or building overhangs shall be provided. These elements shall be a minimum
of four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide along at least seventy five percent (75%) of the
length of the building facade facing the street, a maximum height of fifteen feet (15')
above the ground elevation, and no lower than eight feet (8') above ground level.
Staff Comment: All three (3) buildings as shown on the Elevation Plan (Exhibit 6), contain
pedestrian overhead weather protection at their respective entries. Buildings A and C
contain canopies extending six (6) feet from the façade and Building B contains a
covered plaza. The buildings contain ground floor residential units and would provide
street frontage landscaping between the façade and sidewalks. No pedestrian areas
other than the connections to the sidewalk would be provided along the street facing
facades, which result in no additional need for pedestrian weather protection along the
building. Therefore staff finds the applicant has met the guidelines for overhead
weather protection as it would be provided in those pedestrian areas on the street
facing facades of each building.
4. RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent: To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are available to residents, workers,
and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient
locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote
pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners.
Guidelines: Developments located at street intersections should provide pedestrian-oriented space at
the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity (illustration below). Recreation and common open
space areas are integral aspects of quality development that encourage pedestrians and users. These
areas shall be provided in an amount that is adequate to be functional and usable; they shall also be
landscaped and located so that they are appealing to users and pedestrians
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 22 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: All mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or
more dwelling units shall provide common opens space and/or recreation areas.
a. At minimum, fifty (50) square feet per unit shall be provided.
b. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area
shall be subject to approval by the Administrator.
c. Open space or recreation areas shall be located to provide sun and light
exposure to the area and located so that they are aggregated to provide usable
area(s) for residents.
d. For projects with more than one hundred (100) dwelling units, vegetated low
impact development facilities may be used in required or provided open space
where feasible and designed consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual.
Such facilities shall be counted towards no more than fifty percent (50%) of the
required open space.
e. At least one of the following shall be provided in each open space and/or
recreation area (the Administrator may require more than one of the following
elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units):
i. Courtyards, plazas, pea patches, or multi-purpose open spaces;
ii. Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces
above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to
the site and are provided as an asset to the development;
iii. Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the
public street system;
iv. Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts,
swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or
v. Children’s play spaces that are centrally located near a majority of dwelling
units and visible from surrounding units. They shall also be located away
from hazardous areas such as garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, and
parking areas.
f. The following shall not be counted toward the common open space or
recreation area requirement:
i. Required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas.
ii. Required yard setback areas. Except for areas that are developed as private
or semi-private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas
or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create
a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development.
iii. Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space.
iv. Other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common
access links, such as pedestrian trails.
Staff Comment: The proposed 60 dwelling units would require the applicant to provide
3,000 square feet of common opens space and/or recreation areas. The applicant’s
Urban Design District Overlay Report (Exhibit 19) has indicated that 3,000 square feet
of multi-purpose open space would be provided in the courtyard for residential amenity
space however neither the Site Plan (Exhibit 3) nor the Conceptual Landscape Plan
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 23 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
(Exhibit 4), provides a delineation and calculation of the required space. Therefore staff
recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant shall submit a common open
space exhibit that details dimensions, square footage, and residential amenities for the
project. The exhibit shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application to
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
N/A
Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square
feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide
pedestrian-oriented space.
a. The pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided according to the following
formula: 1% of the site area + 1% of the gross building area, at minimum.
b. The pedestrian-oriented space shall include all of the following:
i. Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting
structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and
ii. Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; and
iii. On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-
candles (average) on the ground; and
iv. At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one
individual seat per sixty (60) square feet of plaza area or open space.
c. The following areas shall not count as pedestrian-oriented space:
i. The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened
or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as
pedestrian-oriented space if the Administrator determines such space
meets the definition of pedestrian-oriented space.
ii. Areas that abut landscaped parking lots, chain link fences, blank walls,
and/or dumpsters or service areas.
d. Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) is prohibited
within pedestrian-oriented space.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
N/A
Standard: Public plazas shall be provided at intersections identified in the Commercial
Arterial Zone Public Plaza Locations Map and as listed below:
a. Benson Area: Benson Drive S./108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 176th.
b. Bronson Area: Intersections with Bronson Way North at:
i. Factory Avenue N./Houser Way S.;
ii. Garden Avenue N.; and
iii. Park Avenue N. and N. First Street.
c. Cascade Area: Intersection of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 168th Street.
d. Northeast Fourth Area: Intersections with N.E. Fourth at:
i. Duvall Avenue N.E.;
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 24 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
ii. Monroe Avenue N.E.; and
iii. Union Avenue N.E.
e. Grady Area: Intersections with Grady Way at:
i. Lind Avenue S.W.;
ii. Rainier Avenue S.;
iii. Shattuck Avenue S.; and
iv. Talbot Road S.
f. Puget Area: Intersection of S. Puget Drive and Benson Road S.
g. Rainier Avenue Area: Intersections with Rainier Avenue S. at:
i. Airport Way/Renton Avenue S.;
ii. S. Second Street;
iii. S. Third Street/S.W. Sunset Boulevard;
iv. S. Fourth Street; and
v. S. Seventh Street.
h. North Renton Area: Intersections with Park Avenue N. at:
i. N. Fourth Street; and
ii. N. Fifth Street.
i. Northeast Sunset Area: Intersections with N.E. Sunset Boulevard at:
i. Duvall Avenue N.E.; and
ii. Union Avenue N.E.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
N/A
Standard: The plaza shall measure no less than one thousand (1,000) square feet with
a minimum dimension of twenty feet (20') on one side abutting the sidewalk.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
N/A
Standard: The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070, including
at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and seating.
Vegetated low impact development facilities may be used in the plaza where feasible
and designed consistent with the Surface Water Design Manual. Such facilities shall
count towards no more than fifty percent (50%) of the plaza requirement.
Staff Comment: Not applicable.
5. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human-
scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To
discourage franchise retail architecture.
a. Building Character and Massing:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human-scale; and ensure
that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 25 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce the apparent size of
buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the
neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to
residential buildings.
Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no
more than forty feet (40').
Staff Comment: As shown on the Rendering, Elevation Plans, and Civil Sheets C3/C4
(Exhibit 5, 6, and 9) each of the buildings contain significant modulation and articulation
on all facades facing the streets. Modulations occur at approximate intervals between
four (4) and 28-feet. Modulations are depths between four (4) and six (6) feet, 12 to 16
feet in width, and 26 feet in height.
Standard: Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2') deep, sixteen feet (16') in
height, and eight feet (8') in width.
Staff Comment: See comment above.
Standard: Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160') in length shall provide a
variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of the
facade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard,
fountain, or public gathering area.
Staff Comment: Building B along the Sunset Lane/NE 10th St frontage contains a façade
length of approximately 196-feet. As shown on the Rendering and Elevation Plans
(Exhibits 5 and 6), a variety of modulations and articulation are provided. The building
modulations on the west side coincide with the alignment of Glennwood Ave NE. The
front of the building contains seven (7) modulations extending from the ground floor to
the bottom of the third floor. The center of the building contains large windows, shed
roof extension, and articulation consistent with the seven (7) modulations. The top floor
contains a material variation that coupled with the first and second floor modulations,
provides the appearance of an upper story step back.
b. Ground-Level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale
character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant
public view have visual interest.
Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood
siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating
architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting
(illustration below). Detail features should also be used, to include things such as decorative entry
paving, street furniture (benches, etc.), and/or public art.
Standard: Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape
feature shall be provided along the facade’s ground floor.
Staff Comment: Ground level landscaping is provided along the three (3) building
facades. See FOF 18 Design Standards: Lighting for recommended conditions of
approval for lighting that will be provided.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 26 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are
required to comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the ground floor facade that
is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation).
Staff Comment: It is unclear from the Elevation Plans (Exhibit 6) if the ground floors of
the three (3) buildings visible to the public contain the required 50-percent transparency
between four (4) and eight (8) feet above ground as measured on the true elevation.
Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit revised
Elevation Plans with the building permit application that include calculations to confirm
the required 50-percent transparent windows and/or doors are provided on the portion
of the ground floor façade that is between four (4) and eight (8) feet above ground.
Should the applicant not be able to meet the standard due to acceptable circumstances
determined by the Current Planning Project Manager, the applicant shall provide
justification that the proposed transparency meets the intent and guidelines of this
section. The revised elevations, modification, or justification shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
Standard: Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility
into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and
energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50
percent.
Staff Comment: Elevation Plan (Exhibit 6) indicate typical clear vinyl windows on the
upper stories of the buildings.
N/A
Standard: Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise,
rather than permanent displays.
Staff Comment: Not applicable. No commercial uses are proposed or required for this
development.
Standard: Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear
glazing.
Staff Comment: Windows are identified as typical vinyl windows.
Standard: Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are
prohibited.
Staff Comment: No tinted, dark glass, or highly reflective glazing are proposed or
shown on submitted materials.
Not compliant
with standard
Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining
walls) is considered a blank wall if:
a. It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 6 feet in height,
has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window,
door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or
b. Any portion of a ground floor wall has a surface area of 400 square feet or
greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other
architectural detailing.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Elevation Plans (Exhibit 6), Buildings A, B, and C do not
contain untreated blank walls visible from offsite. However, Buildings A and C do
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 27 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
contain untreated blank walls on their interior facades visible from interior pedestrian
pathways approximately 11-feet in height and 20-feet in width (Building A East
Elevation and Building C West Elevation). These portions of the façade do not contain a
window, door, building modulation, or other architectural detailing apparent on the
Elevation Plans and would be visible from the internal east/west pedestrian pathway,
open space area pathway, and connections to the refuse and recycling enclosure. See
recommended condition of approval below.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: If blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with
one or more of the following:
a. A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen
ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
b. Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
c. Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special
detailing that meets the intent of this standard;
d. Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
e. Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
Staff Comment: The untreated blank walls noted above contain planting beds adjacent
to the walls approximately three (3) feet in width. Increasing the size of the bed would
likely result in the building shifting and no longer meeting the setbacks from the street
or impacting the layout of the surface parking lot. Meeting the standard for the
relatively small area of blank wall internal to the site could be a simple as providing
additional architectural detailing to the walls and in conjunction with the three (3) foot
wide planting bed be compliant with the standard. Therefore staff recommends as a
condition of approval, the applicant submit revised elevations for Buildings A and C with
the building permit application that provides additional architectural detailing or other
treatment(s) acceptable to the Current Planning Project Manager on the blank walls
located on the ground floors of the east elevation on Building A and west elevation on
Building C. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior permit issuance.
c. Building Roof Lines:
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban
project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
Guidelines: Building roof lines shall be varied and include architectural elements to add visual interest
to the building.
Compliant
with
Guidelines
Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied
and interesting roof profiles:
a. Extended parapets;
b. Feature elements projecting above parapets;
c. Projected cornices;
d. Pitched or sloped roofs
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 28 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
e. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs
with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting
roof forms that break up the massiveness of an uninterrupted sloping roof.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Elevation Plans (Exhibit 6), Buildings A and C contain
multiple shed roofs on the modulations with their rise facing the street façade. Building
B contains a shed roof with the rise facing internally to the project site. In the central
portion of Building B above the main entry, a feature element in the form of a shed roof
rise or vertical modulation above the principal roof line is provided.
The buildings are residential and contain pitched shed roofs in combination with flat
roof forms. The pitch fraction of the roofs do not meet the minimum 1:4, however the
pitch is proportionate to the scale of the building and a 1:4 pitch fraction for the shed
roofs would likely not result in an aesthetic improvement to the overall architecture of
the building. Therefore the pitched shed roofs is an acceptable alternative to the
prescriptive standard and meets the applicable intent and guidelines.
d. Building Materials:
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of
materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add
visual interest to the neighborhood.
Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural design of a
building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be used to create visual appeal
and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all facades in a consistent manner. High quality
materials shall be used. If materials like concrete or block walls are used they shall be enhanced to
create variation and enhance their visual appeal.
Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color
scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality.
Staff Comment: See discussion below.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns or textural changes.
Staff Comment: The proposed buildings indicate material and textural variations as
shown on the Rendering and Elevation Plans (Exhibits 5 and 6). The exterior cladding
schedule provides ceramic panel siding, metal fascia, and vinyl windows. The panel
siding is varied by horizontal random pattern for a majority of the buildings facades
with the modulations consisting of panel tile rainscreen siding. The top floor of Building
B would contain a four (4) inch vertical ceramic tile rainscreen siding. Specific colors
names are not identified in the application materials however the elevations and
rendering provide color variations that include several shades of dark gray on the
horizontal random panel siding and fascia, orange on the modulations, and aluminum
for the vertical ceramic rainscreen on Building B.
To ensure the exterior cladding is made from quality materials, staff recommends as a
condition of approval, the applicant submit a materials board with the building permit
application that provides sample materials and colors for their exterior cladding, metal
entry gate, and perforated metal screen. The materials board shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 29 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have texture, pattern, and be
detailed on all visible facades.
Staff Comment: See discussion above.
Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more traditional
urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished
metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete.
Staff Comment: See discussion above.
N/A
Standard: If concrete is used, walls shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing,
reveals, and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture.
N/A
Standard: If concrete block walls are used, they shall be enhanced with integral color,
textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or shall incorporate
other masonry materials.
Standard: All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns, or textural changes.
Staff Comment: See discussion above.
6. SIGNAGE: In addition to the City’s standard sign regulations, developments within Urban Design
Districts C and D are also subject to the additional sign restrictions found in RMC 4-4-100G, urban design
sign area regulations. Modifications to the standard requirements found in RMC 4-4-100G are possible
for those proposals that can comply with the Design District criteria found in RMC 4-3-100F,
Modification of Minimum Standards. For proposals unable to meet the modification criteria, a variance
is required.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building.
Staff Comment: The land use application did not include any details regarding signage.
Any proposed signage for the new development will require a sign permit application
that will be reviewed for compliance with signage standards outlined in Design District
‘D’.
N/A
Standard: In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the
overall building design.
Staff Comment: Not applicable. The buildings are single use.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be
garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and
interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 30 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Front-lit, ground-mounted monument signs are the preferred type of
freestanding sign.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are
mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian-oriented streets.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: All of the following are prohibited:
a. Pole signs;
b. Roof signs; and
c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated
cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are
permitted as area signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration,
subsection G8 of this Section).
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception of primary
entry signs, shall be limited to five feet (5') above finished grade, including support
structure.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover
and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign.
Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as
approved by the Director.
Staff Comment: See comments in initial sign standard analysis.
7. LIGHTING:
Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as
plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the
visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night.
Guidelines: Lighting that improves pedestrian safety and also that creates visual interest in the building
and site during the evening hours shall be provided.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building
entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting
and decorative street lighting.
Staff Comment: No lighting information was provided with the land use application.
Therefore staff recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a lighting
plan with the building permit application that adequately provides for public safety
without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. The lighting plan shall include a
mix of pedestrian scale lighting in and around entrances, accent lighting on facades,
and details of surface parking lighting poles/fixtures. The lighting plan shall also include
a photometric calculation of footcandles for the site with the proposed lighting fixtures.
The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 31 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces)
and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees,
other significant landscaping, water features, and/or artwork.
Staff Comment: See comment above.
Compliance
not yet
demonstrated
Standard: Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and
vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved
administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
075, Lighting, Exterior On-Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or
decorative lighting, right-of-way-lighting, etc.).
Staff Comment: See comment above.
19. Site Plan Review: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.B, Site Plan Review is required for development in the CV
zoning classification when it is not exempt from Environmental (SEPA) Review. For Master Plan
applications compliance with the review criteria for Site Plans are analyzed at a general level of detail to
ensure nothing would preclude the development of the Site Plan. Given Site Plan applications are
evaluated for compliance with the specific requirements of the RMC 4-9-200.E.3 the following table
contains project elements intended to comply with level of detail needed for Site Plan requests:
Compliance Site Plan Criteria and Analysis
a. Comprehensive Plan Compliance and Consistency.
Staff Comment: See previous discussion under FOF 16, Comprehensive Plan Analysis.
Compliant if
conditions of
approval are
met
b. Zoning Compliance and Consistency.
Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 17, Zoning Development Standard
Compliance.
Compliant if
conditions of
approval are
met
c. Design Regulation Compliance and Consistency.
Staff Comment: See discussion under FOF 18, Design District Review.
d. Planned action ordinance and Master Plan Consistency.
Staff Comment: The City’s Environmental Review Committee determined the Sunset
Oaks Apartments qualifies as a Planned Action as the application meets the criteria
outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance (Ordinance 5813). A Planned Action
Concurrence Review (Exhibit 2) identified the proposal fits within the range of the prior
review conducted within the Sunset Area EIS (Exhibit 17).
The Sunset Oaks Apartments is referred to Site ‘E’ and 14,16/17 in the Renton Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan (LUA14-001475) (Exhibit 15). The initial master site
plan approved in 2015 identified this site as 0.55 acres and it would provide 18
townhomes. In 2016 a minor modification of the master site plan added an additional
0.51 acres and nine (9) units for a total of 19 dwelling units. Following the rezone of the
subject property from R-14 to CV, a 2019 modification to the master site plan (issued
concurrently with this decision) shifted 43 dwelling units from the Edmonds Site C/18 to
the Sunset Oaks site resulting in 62 allowed dwelling units and approximately 57 dwelling
units per net acre. The proposed 60 unit proposal is within the permitted density, use,
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 32 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
and height identified in the Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan and
recent modification, therefore the Sunset Oaks Apartments would be consistent with the
master plan as modified.
Compliant if
conditions of
approval are
met
e. Off-site Impacts.
Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on
a particular portion of the site.
Staff Comment: The initial master plan envisioned lower scaled townhomes for the site.
The revised plan increases density, however three (3) story heights are maintained for
the structures. Buildings contain varied modulations and articulation to break down bulk.
Additionally, the 60 dwelling units are broken up into three (3) buildings further reducing
the overall bulk, coverage, and height that would have resulted from a single structure
on the site. See also FOF 18, Design District Review: Building Character and Massing.
Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets,
walkways and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3), pedestrian walkways are provided
from the entrances from each of the three (3) buildings and walkway also traverses
east/west through the site connecting Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE. A
larger, plaza type walkway is provided from Building B to Sunset Lane/NE 10th St. that
provides a “main entry” to the development and connection to the Sunset Neighborhood
Park across the street.
Utilities, 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. Locate utilities underground consistent with RMC 4-6-090.
Staff Comment: All vehicle access to the development would be provided via a public
alley along the north side (rear) of the property. Loading and garbage/recycling service
would occur in the rear of the property minimizing service and loading along the three
(3) street frontages and surrounding properties. See also FOF 17, Zoning Development
Standard: Screening for conditions of approval related surface mounted utilities.
Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility
to attractive natural features.
Staff Comment: The proposed development is consistent with height that was
anticipated for the site in the overall master plan and follows the multifamily height of
properties in the neighborhood. Territorial views toward the west would be provided on
the third floor of Buildings A and B. Building B would provide local views of the newly
developed Sunset Neighborhood Park from all units located on the south side of the
building.
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.
Staff Comment: Street frontage landscaping between the building and sidewalk and
planters between the sidewalk and street provide a transition between the development
and the surrounding properties. See also discussion under FOF 17, Zoning Development
Standard: Landscaping.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 33 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid
excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not provided with the application; therefore staff
recommended that a lighting plan be provided at the time of building permit review (See
Lighting discussion under FOF 18, Design Review: Lighting).
Compliant if
conditions of
approval are
met
f. On-site Impacts.
Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement,
spacing and orientation.
Staff Comment: The three (3) buildings are located and oriented along the street
frontages and setback with landscaping. Private spaces for tenants are provided within
the interior of the project such as the courtyard and pathway surrounding the retained
Douglas Fir. Noise would be commensurate with other multifamily development in the
area.
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.
Staff Comment: As mentioned previously, structure scale is limited to three (3) stories
and consistent with other multifamily development in the area. Territorial views would
be provided for the third floor residents toward the Olympic Mountains and Green River
valley. Solar exposure would be maintained for much of the year due to height of the
structures and the fact that no large structures would ever be built on the Park property
to the south. Three (3) story structures are not overscale to the abutting street widths of
53 and 60 feet.
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.
Staff Comment: Due to the relatively flat topography, excessive cutting and filling would
not be necessary. Approximately 200 cubic yards of imported fill would be brought in to
level the site for construction. The applicant has proposed to retain one (1) Douglas Fir
tree however staff has recommended a condition of approval that the applicant retain
an additional five (5) trees along the Glennwood Ave NE frontage (See FOF 17 Zoning
Development Standard Compliance: Tree Retention). Paved surfaces would utilize
permeable pavers and concrete to allow infiltration and aquifer recharge.
Reducing Parking Impervious Areas: Design parking areas to minimize impervious
surfaces, including but not limited to: (1) breaking up parking areas and directing
stormwater flows to multiple low impact development features such as bioretention
areas; (2) locating parking near trees to provide storm water uptake; (3) retaining or
adding vegetation to parking areas; (4) placing existing parking that exceeds maximum
parking ratios in permeable pavement designed consistent with the Surface Water
Design Manual in RMC 4-6-030; and (5) using other low impact development techniques
consistent with RMC 4-6-030
Staff Comment: Surface parking for the development is limited to 26 parking spaces.
Additionally, the applicant proposed to pave the parking lot and pedestrian areas with
permeable pavers and concrete allowing for infiltration.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 34 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
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.
Staff Comment: The parking area will be obscured from offsite view by the location of
the buildings. Internal lot landscaping would be provided in bulbs and islands.
Landscaping is also provided between the buildings and sidewalks. See also FOF 20,
Zoning Development Standard: Landscaping.
g. Access and Circulation.
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.
Staff Comment: The applicant would provide a new public alley on the northern portion
of the property limiting vehicle access to two (2) relatively narrow driveways onto
Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE and beginning a new access system as the
block redevelops. No access onto Sunset Lane/NE 10th St would be provided.
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.
Staff Comment: Vehicular access would be limited to the alley and two aisles within the
surface parking lot. The alley width is shown to meet residential widths of 16-feet and
12-feet paved. Surface parking aisles are shown at widths of 26-feet and 24-feet.
Pedestrian circulation is provided within the surface parking area to the open space and
buildings. A wider promenade type walkway is provided from Building B to Sunset
Lane/NE 10th St and the park.
Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and
pedestrian areas.
Staff Comment: No separate loading and delivery areas are provided as the use is limited
to residential. The alley along the northern perimeter allows separation of the garbage
service are from the surface parking lot.
Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access.
Staff Comment: Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per one
dwelling unit is required. The applicant has proposed 31 bicycle parking spaces (see also
FOF 17 Zoning and Development Standard Compliance: Bicycle Parking). King County
transit routes 111 and 240 providing service to Bellevue Transit Center and Downtown
Seattle, respectively are provided nearby on Sunset Blvd NE. Existing pedestrian access
is provided via public sidewalks to those stops.
Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking
areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3), delineated pedestrian connections
are provided through the parking lot linking the developed property’s open space, refuse
and recycling enclosure, buildings, and walkway traversing the site from east to west. All
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 35 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
three buildings are provided pedestrian connections from the front entrance to their
respective street. As shown on the Paving and Grading Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet C3.0),
pedestrian connections within the parking lot would be comprised of permeable concrete
that would contrast with the permeable pavers of the surface parking lot. Other
pedestrian pathways through the site and the public sidewalks along Harrington Ave NE
and Glennwood Ave NE are also shown to be comprised of permeable concrete. The
existing sidewalk on Sunset Lane/NE 10th St would remain unchanged. See also FOF 18,
Design District Compliance
h. 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.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed to locate open space in the center of the
property surrounding a retained Douglas Fir tree and covered courtyard in and around
the main entrance of Building B. The open space connects to a wider pedestrian walkway
in front of Building B adjacent to the Sunset Neighborhood Park. See also FOF 18, Design
District Compliance: Recreation Areas and Common Open Space.
i. Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and
Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines
Staff Comment: The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or
Mt. Rainier. The public access requirement is not applicable to the proposal.
j. Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems
where applicable.
Staff Comment: The property does not contain any streams or wetlands. The applicant
proposes to retain one (1) mature Douglas Fir and staff has recommended a condition
of approval to retain five (5) additional mature Douglas Fir trees along the Glennwood
Ave NE frontage (see FOF 17 Zoning and Development Standards Compliance: Tree
Retention).
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
k. Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to
accommodate the proposed use:
Police and Fire.
Staff Comment: 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.
As shown on the Floor Plans (Exhibit 7) and Elevation Plans (Exhibit 6), the main entrance
to Building B along the Sunset Lane/NE 10th St does not provide the most direct access to
the stair wells, which are located on the far east and right portions of the building. In
order to provide clear emergency access for first aid responders to upper floors, staff
recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised site plan with the
building permit application that provides a pathway from the emergency exit doors
along the east and west façade to the public sidewalk. Additionally, the applicant shall
coordinate with Renton Regional Fire Authority to determine the appropriate secure key
entry device, such as a Lock Box, that would allow first aid responders to access the
emergency exit doors. The revised site plan and coordination with the Renton Regional
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 36 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Fire Authority shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to permit issuance.
Unless waived by City Council, the applicant would be required to pay a Fire Impact Fee
for each new multifamily unit. The 2019 and 2020 fee is $964.53 per dwelling unit.
Schools.
Staff Comment: The Renton School District has indicated they have the capacity to
handle the impact of the additional students estimated to attend from the proposed
development. Students would attend the following schools: Kennydale Elementary,
McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. With the exception of McKnight Middle
School, any new students from the proposed development would be bussed to their
schools. The stop is located approximately 0.11 miles from the project site at Harrington
Ave NE and NE 12th St. Students would walk north along a sidewalk on Harrington Ave
NE to NE 12th St. McKnight Middle School is located approximately 900 feet north from
the Harrington Ave NE and NE 12th St intersection and students would walk to school
along the sidewalk on Harrington Ave NE.
A School Impact Fee would be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s potential
impacts to the Renton School District. The 2019 School Impact Fee is $2,455.00 and 2020
fee is $3,582.00 per new multifamily residence. The fee in effect at the time of building
permit application is applicable to this project and is payable at the time of building
permit issuance.
Water and Sewer.
Staff Comment: The applicant would be required to install a looped water main around
the buildings as the proposed fire flow demand would be 2,750 gallons per minute (gpm).
The applicant would be required to install a 10-inch main within the public alley on the
northern perimeter of the property between the existing mains located Glennwood Ave
NE and Harrington Ave NE shown in the Storm Drainage and Utility Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet
C4.0). The development would require a minimum of three (3) fire hydrants.
The applicant would be required to connect the three (3) buildings to existing sewer
mains located in Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE. Proposed connections are
shown on the Storm Drainage and Utility Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet C4.0).
See Exhibit 20 Advisory Notes: Development Engineering Memo for specific requirements
related to water and sewer requirements.
Drainage.
Staff Comment: The subject property is located within the Peak Rate Flow Control
Standard area and East Lake Washington – Renton Drainage Basin. Based on
requirements of the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM), the applicant
would be required to match existing site conditions and is subject to full drainage review.
As noted and shown in the Technical Information Report prepared by Corterra
Engineering, dated September 3, 2019 (Exhibit 12) and Storm Drainage and Utility Plan
(Exhibit 9 Sheet C4.0), the applicant proposes a detention tank approximately 100 linear
feet and five (5) feet in diameter located under the western surface parking lot to provide
flow control of the stormwater generated from the development. The conveyance system
has been designed to convey the 25-year peak flow from the developed site conditions.
The detention tank would discharge into the existing 18-inch stormwater in Glennwood
Ave NE. Water quality treatment of the site has been proposed via permeable concrete
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 37 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
and pavers. Further analysis by the applicant of the viability of this type of water quality
treatment will be required as part of the civil construction permit application.
See Exhibit 20 Advisory Notes: Development Engineering Memo for specific requirements
related to storm drainage requirements.
Transportation.
Staff Comment: As shown on the Paving and Grading Plan (Exhibit 9 Sheet C3.0), access
to the site is proposed via new 16-foot wide, 12-foot wide paved public alley along the
northern portion of the site between Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE
constructed by the applicant. Driveways would be limited to the alley and no other
vehicle curb cuts would be permitted.
The applicant would be required to construct frontage improvements along Harrington
Ave NE and Glennwood Ave NE. Improvements along Sunset Lane/NE 10th St were
constructed as part of a City capital improvement project and no additional
improvements would be necessary.
Harrington Ave NE is identified as a Green Connection in the Sunset Area Planned Action
EIS with an existing ROW width of 60-feet. Half street improvements would be required
along Harrington Ave NE. Improvements include a curb-bulb tie-in at the intersection of
Sunset Lane/NE 10th St., 6-foot wide parking lane, curb and gutter, 8-foot wide planter
strip, and 6-foot wide sidewalk. The half-street section is consistent with the Sunset Area
Street Classification identified as the “Sunset 60’” as conditioned by the approved Renton
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan (Exhibit 15) with the exception of the 6-foot
wide sidewalk instead of the 5-foot wide sidewalk. No ROW dedication would be
necessary to construct these improvements.
Glennwood Ave NE is classified as a residential access street with an existing ROW width
of 50-feet. The applicant would be required to construct half-street improvements that
include an 8-foot wide planter and 5-foot wide sidewalk with curb and gutter. The
alignment of the sidewalk and planter strip will likely meander due to the recommended
condition of approval to retain the five (5) mature Douglas Fir trees along the frontage.
See also FOF 17 Zoning and Development Standard Compliance: Tree Retention and FOF
21 Modification Analysis.
See Exhibit 20 Advisory Notes: Development Engineering Memo for specific requirements
related to street frontage improvements.
A Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Transpo Group dated September 11, 2019
has indicated that the proposed development would generate 337 new daily vehicle trips
with 22 AM peak hour (6 in and 16 out) and 27 PM peak hour (16 in and 11 out) trips.
Site access from both alley driveways are anticipated to operate at a Level of Service
(LOS) A during the weekday PM peak hour. Nearby intersections at Edmonds Ave NE and
NE 12th St and NE 12th St and Harrington Ave NE would operate at LOS B during the
weekday PM peak hour. No offsite intersection improvements would be needed to
support the project.
The proposal has passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit
21), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of
growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future payment of
appropriate Transportation Impact Fees.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 38 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Unless waived by City Council, the applicant would be required to pay a Transportation
Impact Fee for each new multifamily unit. The 2019 and 2020 fee is $4,836.31 per
dwelling unit.
N/A l. Phasing: The applicant is not requesting any additional phasing.
m. Stormwater: Providing optimal locations of stormwater infiltrating low impact
development facilities. Avoiding placement of buildings or impervious areas on soils
with infiltration capability to the maximum extent practicable.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed a building coverage of only 34-percent of
the lot with paved areas comprised of permeable concrete and pavers.
20. Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-9-090 in order to reduce
the gate openings of the refuse and recycling enclosure from 12-feet to 10-feet and reducing the minimum
number of deposit areas from two (2) based on 60 dwelling units to one (1) deposit area. The proposal is
compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2, if all conditions of
approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, subject to
conditions as noted below:
Compliance Modification Criteria and Analysis
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and
the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement
these policies and objectives.
Staff Comment: Limiting the refuse and recycling enclosure to one deposit area allows
for the single pick-up location for haulers with its location abutting the new public alley
as shown on the Site Plan (Exhibit 3). Dispersing the deposit area to one other location
to meet the strict standards of the code would result in a redundancy and potential need
for additional hauler turning movements within the surface parking lot. By keeping the
single enclosure, haulers would only need to make a single one-way movement through
the alley with no need to enter the site. As shown on the Trash Enclosure Elevations
(Exhibit 18), the 10-foot wide gate openings are constructed of wood. The shed roof is
consistent with the roof form of the three (3) buildings and the CMU walls of the
enclosure have a sand blast finish with green screen. Additionally, the entry for the
residents into the enclosure is comprised of a custom metal door with screens. The
single refuse and recycling enclosure with its two 10-foot wide openings are consistent
with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its
Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and
development. The single deposit area and 17-percent reduction in the gate width is the
minimum adjustment necessary.
Compliant if
condition of
approval is
met
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon
sound engineering judgment.
Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the single refuse and recycling enclosure is
adequate for the 60 dwellings units and limits the area needed for the hauler to
navigate.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 39 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
Staff concurs the proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and
maintainability intended by the code requirements. The single deposit area would
exceed the space requirements by approximately 53-feet for the 60-dwelling units (see
FOF 17 Zoning and Development Standard Compliance: Refuse and Recycling). Also,
providing the enclosure abutting the alley limits the maneuverability needed for the
hauler. The design of the enclosure compliments the development and delineated
pathways via the open space and surface parking lot provide connections for residents
to drop off their refuse and recycling.
To ensure the 10-foot wide gate openings are adequate for the hauler, staff
recommends as a condition of approval, the applicant coordinate with Republic
Services, the City’s contracted refuse and recycling hauler, and share their proposed
refuse and recycling enclosure design to ensure the proposed 10-foot wide gate
openings are adequate for their haulers. The applicant shall submit Republic Services
acceptance with the enclosure with the building permit application to be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager or the applicant shall revise their
enclosure design and provide the minimum 12-foot wide gate openings.
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Staff Comment: The single refuse and recycling enclosure and 10-foot wide gate
opening would not affect other properties in the vicinity.
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code.
Staff Comment: The proposed enclosure would exceed the square footage minimum for
60-dwelling units and therefore would provide adequate space for refuse and recycling.
See also comments under criterion ‘b’.
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
Staff Comment: The single enclosure contains adequate space and abuts an alley, which
is typically the preferred area for service vehicles. See also comments under criterion
‘b’.
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘c’.
21. Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to meander
the sidewalk and planter strip along Glennwood Ave NE resulting in the retention of significant trees along
the street frontage. The retention of the trees may result in the sidewalk to be placed directly behind the
curb in some areas and/or increase the size of the planter strip. Final alignment of the sidewalk and planter
strip would be determined during review of the civil construction permit. The proposal is compliant with
the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2, if all conditions of approval are met.
Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, subject to conditions as noted
below:
Compliance Modification Criteria and Analysis
a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 40 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement
these policies and objectives.
Staff Comment: Retaining the five (5) mature Douglas Fir trees adds value to the
neighborhood in the form of stormwater and carbon capture, natural summertime
shading/cooling, and it preserves the geographic identity of the Pacific Northwest.
Preserving the trees provides an instant mature planter strip for Glennwood Ave NE
whereas the alternative of replanting would likely entail 25-30 years to obtain the size
of the existing trees. Retaining the trees along Glennwood Ave NE is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan Goal L-CC: Support and sustain programs in the City to encourage
effective use, preservation, and protection of Renton’s resources and Policy L-55:
Preserve natural landforms, vegetation, distinctive stands of trees, natural slopes, and
scenic areas that contribute to the City’s identity, preserve property values, and visually
define the community and neighborhoods. See also FOF 16, Comprehensive Plan
Analysis.
b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental
protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon
sound engineering judgment.
Staff Comment: The proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and
maintainability intended by the code requirements as the sidewalk and planter would
be provided and function as intended. Glennwood Ave NE is a residential access street
with limited traffic volumes. The existing conditions of Glenwood Ave NE do not
currently provide a sidewalk. The new street frontage construction would be an
improvement over existing conditions and will be reviewed during the civil construction
permit phase to ensure public improvements are designed per the City’s engineering
and construction standards.
c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Staff Comment: The proposed modification will not be injurious to other properties in
the vicinity. New sidewalks will be provided for public use.
d. Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code.
Staff Comment: The required street frontage improvements will be constructed as part
of the modification with only their location modified in order to retain the trees. See
also comments under criterion ‘b’.
e. Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and
Staff Comment: The trees are in good condition and with arborist consultation and
supervision they can and should be retained. See also comments under criterion ‘b’.
f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity.
Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘c’.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 41 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
I. CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject site is located in the Commercial & Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan designation and
complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 16.
2. The subject site is located in the Center Village (CV) zoning designation and complies with the zoning and
development standards established with this designation provided the applicant complies with City Code
and conditions of approval, see FOF 17.
3. The proposed site plan complies with the Urban Design District D standards provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF 18.
4. The proposed site plancomplies with the Site Plan Review standards provided the applicant complies with
City Code and conditions of approval, see FOF19.
5. The proposed site plan complies with the street standards as established by City Code and as modified in
FOF 21, provided the project complies with all advisory notes and conditions of approval contained herein,
see FOF 19.
6. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed site plan, see FOF 19.
7. The requested modification to the refuse and recycling standards complies with the modification criteria
provided the applicant complies with City Code and the condition of approval, see FOF 20
8. The requested modification to the street standards for Glennwood Ave NE complies with the modification
criteria provided the applicant complies with all advisory notes and conditions of approval, see FOF 21.
9. Key features which are integral to this project include 60-unit affordable housing development along the
north side of Sunset Lane/NE 10th St adjacent to the recently constructed Sunset Neighborhood Park. The
development would complement the neighborhood by providing a northern edge to the park with
attractive architecture that includes modulations proportionate to the scale of the buildings and varied
articulation. Roof forms consist of gently sloped shed roofs that face the street on the smaller buildings
and internal courtyard on the large building. The site is built around a mature Douglas Fir tree with the
attempted retention of five (5) additional Doulas Fir trees along the Glennwood Ave NE frontage. Vehicle
access would be limited to two (2) curb cuts along the new east/west public alley along the northern
portion of the property that will begin a new vehicle access system for the future redevelopment of the
block.
J. DECISION:
The Sunset Oaks site plan, File No. LUA19-000274, SA-A, as depicted in Exhibit 3, is approved and is subject to
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall submit a revised Site Plan with the civil construction permit that provides an accurate
15-foot front yard setback measurement from the ROW along Glennwood Ave NE (following dedication)
and Buildings A and B. The buildings shall be setback at least 15-feet from the ROW with the exception
of limited and nominal encroachments for the modulations as shown on the submitted land use
application Site Plan (Exhibit 3) and any meander needed for the sidewalk to retain the existing Douglas
Firs along the street frontage. The revised Site Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
2. The applicant shall provide clear dimensional measurements and square footage calculations of interior
parking lot landscaping on the Detailed Landscaping Plan to be submitted with the civil construction
permit application. Areas of parking lot landscaping that do not meet the 8-foot by 12-foot dimension
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 42 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
will not be credited with meeting the minimum requirement. The Detailed Landscaping Plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
3. In addition to retaining Tree #8, the applicant shall also attempt to retain Trees 2-6 via a meandering
sidewalk and planter strip along the site’s Glennwood Ave NE frontage. The applicant shall submit a
revised arborist report that provides recommendations for the well-being of all retained trees that also
includes the appropriate ongoing arborist monitoring visits and tree protection techniques, including
temporary irrigation, during and post construction to ensure the safety and vitality of the trees. The
revised arborist report shall be submitted with the civil construction permit application to be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
4. The applicant shall submit detail sheets of the bicycle parking locations that identify security, minimum
space and maneuverability, rack connections to ground, and other identified applicable RMC bicycle
parking standards for attached dwelling units. The bicycle parking detail sheets shall be submitted with
the building permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to permit issuance.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised Utility Plan with the civil construction permit application and
identify all surface mounted utility equipment. Surface mounted equipment should not be located
within the common open space amenity areas. Any surface mounted equipment located between the
building and street should be located outside of the 15-foot building setback area. The screening of the
equipment shall be shown on the Detailed Landscape Plan submitted with the civil construction permit
application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
6. The applicant shall submit a detail sheet with the building permit application that provides screening of
roof top mechanical equipment. The screening shall be integrated into the design of the building and/or
constructed of materials consistent and complimentary to the building’s architecture. The rooftop
screening detail sheet shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
7. The applicant shall submit revised Elevation Plans and other applicable plans with the building permit
application that provide additional primary entrance features that will result in a prominent street entry
for Buildings A and C. Features such as additional articulation and varied cladding in and around the
main entry, planters, additional sidelight, lighting, and/or other aesthetic enhancements acceptable to
the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised Elevation Plans and other applicable plans shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
8. The applicant shall submit a revised Grading Plan and provide detail sheets for the proposed retaining
walls with the civil construction permit application. As the proposed wall will be in close proximity to the
retained Douglas Fir tree, the applicant shall also submit a revised arborist report that provides
recommendations and best practices for constructing the wall in and around the critical root zone of the
tree. The revised plans, arborist report, and detail sheet shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
9. The applicant shall submit revised Refuse and Recycling Plans with the building permit application that
provides details for self-closing gates or other method/mechanism to ensure the gates are unable to be
left open unattended. The revised plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
10. The applicant shall submit a revised Site Plan with the civil construction permit that provides a minimum
pedestrian width of five (5) feet within the site with the exception of those areas that need to be
reduced for tree retention or other reason(s) acceptable to the Current Planning Project Manager. The
revised Site Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 43 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
11. The applicant shall submit a pedestrian amenities exhibit that provides planters, seating, and/or other
outdoor site furniture that enhances the building entries and open space areas. The pedestrian
amenities exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
12. The applicant shall submit a common open space exhibit that details dimensions, square footage, and
residential amenities for the project. The exhibit shall be submitted with the civil construction permit
application to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
13. The applicant shall submit revised Elevation Plans with the building permit application that include
calculations to confirm the required 50-percent transparent windows and/or doors are provided on the
portion of the ground floor façade that is between four (4) and eight (8) feet above ground. Should the
applicant not be able to meet the standard due to acceptable circumstances determined by the Current
Planning Project Manager, the applicant shall provide justification that the proposed transparency
meets the intent and guidelines of the Ground Level Details section. The revised elevations or
justification shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
14. The applicant shall submit revised Elevation Plans for Buildings A and C with the building permit
application that provides additional architectural detailing or other treatment(s) acceptable to the
Current Planning Project Manager on the blank walls located on the ground floors of the east elevation
on Building A and west elevation on Building C. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior permit issuance.
15. The applicant shall submit a materials board with the building permit application that provides sample
materials and colors for their exterior cladding metal entry gate, and perforated metal screen. The
materials board shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
permit issuance.
16. The applicant shall submit a Lighting Plan with the building permit application that adequately provides
for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties. The Lighting plan shall include a
mix of pedestrian scale lighting in and around entrances, accent lighting on facades, and details of
surface parking lighting poles/fixtures. The Lighting Plan shall also include a photometric calculation of
footcandles for the site with the proposed lighting fixtures. The Lighting Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
17. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan with the building permit application that provides a
pathway from the emergency exit doors along the east and west façade to the public sidewalk.
Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with Renton Regional Fire Authority to determine the
appropriate secure key entry device, such as a Lock Box, that would allow first aid responders to access
the emergency exit doors. The revised Site Plan and coordination with the Renton Regional Fire
Authority shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit
issuance.
18. The applicant shall coordinate with Republic Services, the City’s contracted refuse and recycling hauler,
and share their proposed refuse and recycling enclosure design to ensure the proposed 10-foot wide
gate openings are adequate for their haulers. The applicant shall submit Republic Services acceptance
with the enclosure with the building permit application to be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager or the applicant shall revise their enclosure design and provide the minimum
12-foot wide gate openings.
19. The applicant shall implement the following condition of approval from the Renton Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Master Plan decision: Prior to beginning construction, each individual project phase or
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 44 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
improvement shall provide information to surrounding property owners about timelines, extent of
construction, and contact information.
DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION:
SIGNATURE:
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Date
TRANSMITTED on December 18, 2019 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact:
Owner: Applicant/Contact:
Mark Gropper,
Renton Housing Authority,
2900 NE 10th St.,
Renton, WA 98056
Poppi S Handy, Third Place Design Co-op,
304 Alaskan Way S., Suite 301,
Seattle, WA 98104
TRANSMITTED on December 18, 2019 to the Parties of Record:
Name and address
TRANSMITTED on December 18, 2019 to the following:
Chip Vincent, CED Administrator
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Amanda Askren, Property Services
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Rick Marshall, Fire Marshal
K. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION:
The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the
decision date.
APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing
Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on January 2, 2019. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day
appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner,
City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing
Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office,
(425) 430-6510.
EXPIRATION: The Administrative Site Development Plan Review decision will expire two (2) years from the date
of decision. A single two (2) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-200.
RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened
by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable
prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the
reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
12/18/2019 | 2:32 PM PST
City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development
Sunset Oaks
Administrative Report & Decision
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Report of December 18, 2019 Page 45 of 45
D_Sunset_Oaks_Admin_Report_LUA19-000274_191213
be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal
within the 14-day appeal time frame.
THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications
may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals
to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing
through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to
know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any
violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Sunset Oaks
Land Use File Number:
LUA19-000274, SA-A
Date of Report
December 18, 2019
Staff Contact
Matt Herrera
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Poppi S Handy
Third Place Design Co-
operative
304 Alaskan Way S., Suite
301, Seattle, WA 98104
Project Location
1073 Harrington Ave NE
The following exhibits are included with the Administrative Report and Decision:
Exhibits 1-14 As shown in the Environmental Review Committee Memorandum
Exhibit 15: Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan LUA14-001475
Exhibit 16: Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance 5813
Exhibit 17: Sunset Area Planned Action EIS
Exhibit 18: Trash Enclosure Elevations
Exhibit 19: Urban Design District Report
Exhibit 20: Advisory Notes
Exhibit 21: Concurrency Test
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4211A613-4BEA-4A9A-A574-FF86BAC26671
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 1
Reevaluation / Addendum
Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment | August 2019
Prepared By: BERK Consulting in association with Transpo Group
1 Background/Need for Reevaluation .................................................................................... 2
2 Sunset Area Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Land Use Proposals ......................................................................................................................... 8
2.3 Development Standards ............................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals .......................................................................................... 13
2.5 Updated Land Cover / Impervious Analysis ............................................................................. 13
2.6 Phasing ............................................................................................................................................. 15
2.7 Master Site Plan and Other Discretionary Applications ......................................................... 16
3 Environmental Analysis ....................................................................................................18
3.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Transportation................................................................................................................................. 18
3.5 Parks and Recreation .................................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Public Services ................................................................................................................................ 18
3.7 Utilities .............................................................................................................................................. 18
3.8 Other FEIS Topics ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.9 Monitoring and Review ................................................................................................................. 19
4 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................23
Attachments
Attachment A Transportation Analysis - Reevaluation
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 2
1 Background/Need for Reevaluation
The City of Renton, along with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), and other public, private, and
nonprofit agencies and developers, is redeveloping the Sunset Terrace public housing community
plus some peripheral sites that have been master planned for redevelopment along with Sunset
Terrace for a total of about 12.7 acres. See Exhibit 1.
The Master Site Plan envisions a mixed-use, mixed-income community with park and library and
other civic and commercial uses. Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and affordable rental
housing in multi-story, multi-family townhomes and apartments, along with commercial and retail
space.
The Master Site Plan is located within the Renton Sunset neighborhood that has been included in the
Renton Comprehensive Plan as a center for new housing, commercial, recreation, education, and
other uses. See Exhibit 2.
In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requirements, the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the City
of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1,
2011.1 The City served as the Responsible Entity (RE) for NEPA compliance, and the lead agency
for SEPA compliance.
The Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan Area was also the subject of subsequent revaluations/addenda
in 2014 and 2016. The Master Site Plan completed in 2014 provides a coordinated plan of
development for both the Sunset Terrace and Replacement sites. The 2016 Master Site Plan
amendment added properties into the Master Site Plan, and redistributed some dwelling units, but
retained the same overall number of units as approved by the 2014 Master Site Plan. See Exhibit
3 for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment area and housing replacement sites.
In 2019, RHA2 is proposing an amended Master Site Plan that would:
Shift units between a site on the west (Site C/18: Edmonds Apartments/Homestead Willow
Crest Townhomes) to a site in the north of the Master Site Plan area (Site E/14,16/17: Sunset
Park West Townhomes 2014/Harrington Park 2016/Sunset Oaks 2019).
This 2019 reevaluation also assesses the future removal of a site from the Master Site Plan
boundaries (Site G/11 known previously as the Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apartments
2014/Suncrest Homes 2016/Solera 2019). The site would remain within the Sunset Area
Community neighborhood. This Master Site Plan boundary amendment proposal is evaluated for
potential implementation at a later date. It would require a Major Site Plan amendment and
Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) amendment when accomplished. The reevaluation identifies
implications of the site’s future removal should the City or RHA desire that amendment.
The 2019 proposals would not add housing units in the Master Site Plan area or in the Sunset Area
neighborhood. However, consistent with the flexibility allowed by the adopted Master Site Plan,
some units would be redistributed.
1 CH2MHill and ICF International. 2011. Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact
Statement. Final. April. (ICF 00593.10.) Bellevue and Seattle, WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing
Authority, Renton, WA.
2 RHA owns Sites C and E. The applicant for Site E is Sunset Oakes LLLP.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 3
As amended, development in the Master Site Plan area would meet City standards for density,
height, setbacks, transportation levels of service, connection to utilities, and would be subject to City
parking codes, including procedures for modifying applicable standards.
The amended Master Site Plan would be consistent with RMC Title IV. Also, the SEPA PAO would
be amended in the future to include the revised Master Site Plan concept should Site G/11 (Solera)
site be removed. The total development levels and mitigation measures in the PAO remain
unchanged.
Exhibit 1. Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan 2016
Source: Mithun, City of Renton 2016
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 4
Exhibit 2. Planned Action Area: 2011
Source: CH2MHill and ICF International, 2011; BERK, 2016.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 5
Exhibit 3. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites: 2016
Source: CH2MHill and ICF International, 2011; BERK, 2016.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 6
As with the changes previously evaluated in 2014 and 2016, the 2019 revisions proposed to the
Master Site Plan at this time are the focus of this NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum to provide
additional information about the proposal, to determine whether the proposed changes would result
in any new or substantially different environmental impacts, and to assess whether the conclusions
of the original EIS are still valid.
This analysis would also provide the basis for amendments to the Record of Decision (ROD) and/or
PAO, if any. This Reevaluation and Addendum document is structured as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Sunset Area Alternatives
3. Environmental Analysis
4. Conclusions
2 Sunset Area Alternatives
2.1 STUDY AREA
The primary Sunset Terrace redevelopment
area as well as housing Replacement sites,
and areas of public investment are illustrated
on Exhibit 4.
All Master Site Plan sites, plus the Sunset Area
neighborhood, were evaluated in the 2011
EIS for the Sunset Area Community Planned
Action Area. See Exhibit 5.
The 2014 Master Site Plan area totaled about
12.4 acres. The updated 2016 Master Site
Plan area equaled about 14 acres.
In this 2019 reevaluation, the Master Site Plan
area is about 14 acres with the same sites, or
12.9 acres if Site G/11 is removed.
Exhibit 4. Lettered Master Plan Sites
# - Master Plan Sites /// - Sunset Terrace Public Housing
Boundaries
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 7
Exhibit 5. Revitalization Projects: 2019
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 8
2.2 LAND USE PROPOSALS
In total, 722 dwelling units are being proposed in the study area in this 2019 Reevaluation, which
is to the same as the number of units considered in the 2014 and 2016 Reevaluations. See Exhibit
6. Future commercial square feet are the same for each Master Site Plan Reevaluation. The Master
Site Plan acres vary between the alternatives with more added in 2016 compared with 2014. In
2019, the total acres are similar to 2016, with slight adjustments due to the availability of specific
site plans completed since 2016. If Site G/11 is removed, the acres would equal 15.74 closer to
the 2014 Master Site Plan extent.
Exhibit 6. Summary of Total Units, Commercial Square Feet, and Acres: Studied in Reevaluation
Location
See Exhibit 4 for Site Letters
Total
Dwelling
Units: 2014,
2016, 2019
Commercial
Square Feet:
2014, 2016,
2019
Land Area
(acres):
2014
Land Area
(acres):
2016
Land Area
(acres):
2019
Master Site Plan Sites
Sunset Terrace and Replacement Sites: C through J 671 4,500-
39,500
7.63 9.23 9.17
Library (Site K), Developed 15,000
Sunset Park (Site M) and Regional Stormwater
Facility (Site L), Installed
3.20 3.20 3.21
NE 10th and Sunset Lane Loop (Site N and O) 1.61 1.61 1.61
Total Master Site Plan Sites 19,500-
54,500
12.44 14.04 13.99
Other Sunset Terrace Study Area Sites: Glenwood
(Site A) - Developed
671
0.65 0.65 0.65
Swap Sites: Kirkland Avenue (B) - Developed,
Library Site for Future Surplus (X)
8
2.18 2.18 2.18
Other Employment potential in Sunset Terrace and
Replacement Sites
43
4,500
Total All Sites 722 19,500-
59,000
15.28 16.88 16.83
Source: King County Assessor; ICF Jones & Stokes et al. 2011; BERK Consulting 2015 and 2019
Two alternatives were addressed in the NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and the PAO as “selected”
alternatives: Alternative 3 and a Preferred Alternative. See Exhibit 7 for a list of net dwelling units.
These alternatives represented the higher growth levels studied in the EIS. The mitigation documents
contained in the ROD and PAO were based on the range of growth of the two Selected Sunset
Area Alternatives.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 9
Exhibit 7. Comparison of Net Growth in Sunset Terrace and Neighborhood Alternatives
Dwelling
Units/Jobs
Net New Growth
FEIS Alternative 3
FEIS Preferred
Alternative
Reevaluation
Alternative: 2014
Reevaluation
Alternative: 2016, 2019
Neighbor
-hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor
-hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor
-hood
Sunset
Terrace
Neighbor
-hood
Sunset
Terrace
Dwelling units 2,506 479c 2,339 266a 2,506 554b 2,506 519b
Population 5,789 1,106 5,403 614a 5,789 1,279 5,789 1,199
Employment SF 1,310,113 59,000 1,247,444
–
1,259,944
38,100 1,310,113 19,500-
59,000
1,310,113 19,500-
59,000
Jobs 3,330 182 3,154–
3,192
117 3,330 60-182 3,330 60-182
a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites.
b Similar to the FEIS, includes the sites shaded purple in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, considered Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment subarea. This equates to Master Site Plan sites C, D, E, G to O, plus site A. Sites B, F, and X
considered swap sites and included within neighborhood dwelling units.
C Does not include swap sites B, F, and X.
Source: FEIS 2011, BERK 2014, 2016, 2019.
The purpose of identifying two “Selected Sunset Area Alternatives” in the FEIS was to define a
range of acceptable growth and designs considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace
redevelopment plans in 2011, as well as the 20-year horizon of the broader neighborhood planned
action. The Preferred Alternative was similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a
reconfiguration of park space and road network. The two alternatives were similar in terms of
potential beneficial and adverse impacts and required mitigation measures.
Since the original FEIS analysis, additional site planning for Sunset Terrace and other properties
has occurred and some changes in the number or location of units have been considered. In 2014,
90 units were added to in the Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan area (Exhibit 8), compared to
Alternative 3 in the FEIS, but the total number of units in the overall Sunset Area neighborhood
remained the same. As well, other site planning considerations were addressed regarding building
height, etc. as described above. The NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation conducted in 2014 showed no
substantive changes in impacts or required mitigation were needed as a result of the revised
alternative, which is termed the “Reevaluation Alternative.” Per the approved 2014 Master Site
Plan, dwelling units may be redistributed among sites provided the Reevaluation conclusions are
maintained.
The net units in Sunset Terrace are lower in 2016 and 2019 than in 2014 per Exhibit 7. This is a
reflection of the boundaries of the 2011 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area (sites
shaded purple in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3) that excluded Site 19 (also lettered Site F). Site F/19 is
included in the Sunset Area neighborhood units.
Some potential dwelling units are proposed to be transferred among five individual Master Site
Plan sites; these are identified with the “box” on Exhibit 8. However, the total number of units that
could be developed in the Master Site Plan area would remain the same.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 10
Exhibit 8. Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Third Place Design, Mithun, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, BERK 2014, 2016, 2019
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site Development Title Status Acres:
2014
Total Units
Reviewed in
Reevaluation:
2014
Acres:
2016
Total Units
Reviewed in
Reevaluation:
2016
Acres:
2019
Total Units
Reviewed in
Reevaluation:
2019
A Glennwood Townhomes Constructed RHA 0.65 8 0.65 8 0.65 8
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Constructed RHA 0.77 18 0.77 18 0.77 18
C 18 Edmonds Apartments/Sunset Crest Part of Master Site Plan 1.70 112 1.70 68 1.70 25
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments Part of Master Site Plan 0.51 54 0.51 47 0.51 47
E 14, 16/17 Sunset Park West Townhomes 2014 /
Harrington Park 2016/ Sunset Oaks 2019
Part of Master Site Plan 0.55 10 1.06 19 1.05 62
F 19 Sunset Court Townhomes 2014 / Sunset
Court Apartments 2016
Part of Master Site Plan 0.88 15 1.95 50 1.95 50
G 11 Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apts
2014 / Suncrest Homes 2016 / Solera 2019
Part of Master Site Plan (Remove in Future)1.09 57 1.09 64 1.09 64
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A Part of Master Site Plan 0.99 117 0.99 117 0.58 117
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B Part of Master Site Plan 1.18 196 1.18 196 1.18 196
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C Part of Master Site Plan 0.74 110 0.74 110 0.74 110
K 10 Renton Highlands Library Constructed, King County Library System See H See H 0.37
L Regional Stormwater Facility Constructed, City See M See M See M
M Sunset Park Consturcted, City 3.20 3.2 3.2
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Constructed, City 1.41 1.41 1.41
O NE 10th Street Extension Improvements Constructed, City 0.20 0.20 0.20
X Library Site (2013)Future Development 1.41 25 1.41 25 1.41 25
Total - Master Plan Sites 12.44 671 14.04 671 13.99 671
Total - All Sites 15.28 722 16.88 722 16.83 722
= Master Plan Properties
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 11
The 2019 Reevaluation alternative is similar to the 2016 Reevaluation alternative except potential
dwelling units would be transferred as follows:
Site C/18 would be reduced from 68 to 25 units and Site E/14,16/17 would be increased
from 19 to 62 units.
The eastern half of Site C is planned for 12 townhomes in a development currently known as
Homestead Willow Crest Townhomes. The development is seeking Self-Help Homeownership
Opportunity Program (SHOP) funding. This development has been reviewed in its own NEPA
documentation.
The reduced number of units allocated to Site C accommodates the 12-unit townhome development
on the east. The western portion of Site C has not yet been planned but could accommodate another
13 units with the balance of the 25-unit allocation.
The City considered a Comprehensive Plan future land use map change and rezone for Site E in
2018. The Future Land Use Map was changed from Residential High Density to Commercial Mixed
Use. The site was also correspondingly rezoned from R-14 to Center Village (CV). The reallocation
of the units is consistent with the density allowed by the CV zone.
Site E is proposed for affordable attached dwelling units in a development called Sunset Oakes. It
is anticipated that units will be rented with project-based vouchers using RHA operating subsidies;
there is no direct federal capital funding.
The Master Site Plan concept would be retained per Exhibit 1 at this time. In the future, it is possible
that Site G/11 will be removed from the Master Site Plan; however, it would still be located in the
Sunset Area neighborhood, retain its zoning, and be allowed development similar to that in the
Master Site Plan. It may develop with public housing, privately developed housing, mixed uses, or
other forms of development allowed by the CV zoning district. The boundary reduction would
require a Major Site Plan amendment and PAO amendment if proposed in the future.
2.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Sites C/18 and E/14,16/17 proposed for unit reallocations are addressed below together with
cumulative development allowed in the Master Site Plan area and the Sunset Area neighborhood.
Other sites in the study area were addressed in the 2011 EIS and the 2014 and 2016 NEPA/SEPA
Reevaluations.
2.3.1 Building Height
All sites would be designed to meet allowable heights of their respective zones.
Site E/14,16/17 was considered to be developed at three stories in the 2016 Reevaluation and
associated Master Site Plan height analysis. While the CV zone allows heights of 50 feet with 10
feet more for retail on the ground floor, the proposed Sunset Oaks development would be 33 feet
maximum consistent with the 2016 height analysis; thus, no further height or shade/shadow analysis
is needed.
Site C/18 was evaluated in the 2016 Master Site Plan with conceptual buildings extending up to
50-60 feet in height consistent with the CV zone. Detailed site plans have been prepared for the
eastern portion of the property with three-story townhomes, less than the maximum height of the
zone. The western portion of the site is undesigned and subject to the maximum 50-60 feet in height.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 12
2.3.2 Density
All sites are consistent with the density requirements of the zoning code or density transfer
agreements. Sites D, H, I, and J were allowed to exceed site-specific density in 2014 based on the
density transfer from the larger park via the Master Site Plan approval. With detailed development
site plans for Sites H and K, the density increased on Site H since the lot is a little smaller than
originally projected. However, the 2014 Master Site Plan transferred density from the park to the
sites since it was conceptually planned together and part of the original Sunset Terrace public
housing site. Density for sites part of original Sunset Terrace (D, H-M) including the Sunset
Neighborhood Park is 76.6 units per acre less than the maximum 80 units (7.3 acres and 559 units).
See Exhibit 9.
Exhibit 9. Density Standards and Results
Notes:
R-14 zone allows a bonus density: Per 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review: Up to 4 additional dwelling units per net acre.
Densities of greater than eighteen (18) units per net acre are prohibited.
CV Zone: RMC 4-9-065 allows a bonus of 50% above maximum density in the CV zone.
Source: City of Renton Municipal Code; BERK Consulting 2019.
2.3.3 Parking
Subject sites will be required to meet City parking standards. The standards for parking are as
follows:
Attached dwellings in RM-F, R-14, and R-10 Zones: A minimum and maximum of
1.6 per 3 bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.0
per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling unit. In addition to the minimum parking stalls
required, a minimum 10% of the total number of required parking spaces shall be
provided for guest parking and located in a common area accessible by guests.
Attached dwellings within all other zones: 1 per dwelling unit is required. A
maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed.
Attached dwellings for low income: A minimum of 1 for each 4 dwelling units is
required [0.25]. A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed.
Project Name
Total
Proposed
Units with
Reevaluation
Density
Reevaluation
Zone
Maximum
Density
Greater or
Lesser than
Maximum
Density
Proposed
Building
Height in
Feet
RHA Sunset Terrace- Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
C Edmonds Apartments/Homestead Willow Crest 1.70 25 14.7 80.0 (65.3) 60.0 60.00 -
D Sunset Terrace Apartments 0.51 47 93.0 80.0 13.0 60.0 50.00 10.0
E Sunset Park West Townhomes 2014 / Harrington
Park 2016/ Sunset Oaks 2019
1.05 62 59.2 80.0 (20.8)
33.0 50.00 (17.0)
F Sunset Court Townhomes 2014 / Sunset Court 1.95 50 25.6 80.0 (54.4) 39.0 50.00 (11.0)
G Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apts 2014 /
Suncrest Homes 2016 / Solera 2019
1.09 64 58.6 80.0 (21.4)
48.0 50.00 (2.0)
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects -
H Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A 0.58 117 202.4 80.0 122.4 68.0 60.00 8.0
I Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B 1.18 196 166.0 80.0 86.0 62.0 50.00 12.0
J Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C 0.74 110 148.3 80.0 68.3 58.0 50.00 8.0
K Renton Highlands Library 0.37 27.0 60.00 (33.0)
L Regional Stormwater Facility See park
M Sunset Park 3.21
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements 1.41
O NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements 0.20
Total Sunset Terrace Improvement Projects 13.99 671 48.0
Density Exlcluding Rights of Way 671 52.5
Greater or
Lesser Than
Maximum
Height
Property
Area per Site
Plans
Zone
Maximum
Height
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 13
Public housing sites propose parking consistent with the standards for low-income attached dwellings
which may range from 0.25 to 1.75 per dwelling unit.
2.3.4 Onsite Open Space
In the CV zone, common open space is required to be provided at a rate of fifty (50) square feet
per unit. The City may allow substitutions in light of the public park provided adjacent to the
properties. See RMC 4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require
payment of a Fee-in-Lieu of Common Open Space. This would be addressed in future Site Plan
Review applications.
Site C/18 would require 1,250 square feet of onsite open space. The eastern portion of the
site with 12 homes proposes 3,886 square feet, which is more than the number for 25 total
future units. It is likely the western portion of the site would add to the onsite open space.
Site E/14, 16/17 would require 3,100 square feet of open space. Conceptual site plans show
a central tree and mix of hardscape and plantings in the center of the site that would equal at
least half of that with other areas of plantings that are beyond the setback areas.
Private open space is required to be provided for each dwelling unit. Site plans for site C/18 show
townhome units with patio space. Site E plans shows balconies; first floor units appear to have
windows/balconies higher than ground level.
At the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of
units that may have alternative private open space standards if meeting the overall intent of design
standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-250(D).
2.3.5 Setbacks
The CV zone requires a minimum 10-foot setback which may be reduced to 0 feet as part of the
site plan development review process, provided blank walls are not located within the reduced
setback.
Site C/18 on the west facing Edmonds Ave NE has not yet been designed but would be subject to
CV zone setbacks.
The proposed Sunset Oaks plan for Site E/14,16/17 provides 15 feet setbacks from streets. The
northern property line setback includes a 16-foot alley and about 10 feet of plantings or parking
access areas.
2.4 FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSALS
Detailed infrastructure plans will be required to meet City standards for utility hookups, fire flow
pressure, and stormwater standards including the conceptual utility plan that was part of the PAO.
2.5 UPDATED LAND COVER / IMPERVIOUS ANALYSIS
The FEIS included an analysis of changes in impervious surfaces. Additionally, consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the original 2011 proposal was
evaluated with respect to potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA. A
biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
in December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any
ESA-protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 14
corresponded in January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter
of concurrence in May 2011.
Exhibit 10 shows the land cover analysis associated with the 2011 FEIS Alternative 3, and Exhibit
11 shows the analysis associated with the Preferred Alternative; both were addressed in the FEIS,
ROD, and NMFS correspondence.
Exhibit 10. FEIS Alternative 3 Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total Area
(acres)
Total
Impervious
Area (acres)
Total
Pervious Area
(acres)
Total PGIS
(acres)
Total
Untreated
PGIS (acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 2.14
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea
12.64 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22
Total 15.70 9.32 6.80 3.05 0.26 6.36
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill, April 29, 2011, memo to Erika Conkling, City of Renton, Summary of Sunset Terrace Land
Coverage Analysis in Response to NMFS Comments
Exhibit 11. FEIS Preferred Alternative Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total Area
(acres)
Total Impervious
Area (acres)
Total Pervious
Area (acres)
Total PGIS
(acres)
Total Untreated
PGIS (acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 2.39
Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66
Total 15.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.15
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill, April 29, 2011, memo to Erika Conkling, City of Renton, Summary of Sunset Terrace Land
Coverage Analysis in Response to NMFS Comments
The following table shows an updated analysis of the 2019 Reevaluation Proposal, including sites
that are amended regarding unit reallocations but also other sites that have been constructed using
approved site plans, and sites under planning with updated site plans. Results show the total
impervious area, pollutant generating impervious surfaces (PGIS), and effective impervious area is
less than FEIS Alternative 3.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 15
Exhibit 12. Reevaluation 2019 Land Cover Analysis
Location
Total
Area
(acres)
Total
Impervious
Area (acres)
Total
Pervious
Area
(acres)
Total
PGIS
(acres)
Total
Untreated
PGIS (acres)
Effective
Impervious
(acres)*
Potential Replacement Sites 4.14 1.38 2.76 0.45 0.26 0.83
Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
12.69 6.99 5.74 1.64 0 4.19
Total 16.83 8.37 8.50 2.09 0.26 5.02
Notes: PGIS = Pollutant generating impervious surfaces .
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, CH2MHill, BERK , 2014; Schemata, Renton
Housing Authority, BERK 2015; Third Place Design, Lank Tree Land Surveying, BERK, 2019.
Notes: *Per FEIS & BA, assumes that 40% of the impervious area in the site would be mitigated with flow control best
management practices.
Total acres within the study area as a whole are higher than in 2011 due to properties for
replacement housing added in 2016. However, with updated site plan information across the
Master Site Plan area, total impervious area is lower due to the proposed designs of the sites many
of which have pervious sidewalks and pavement (e.g. Glenwood Townhomes, Sunset Court), lesser
Sunset Terrace right-of-way, and the larger park.
To keep within impervious limits, the following features are included with sites where units are being
reallocated in this 2019 Reevaluation:
Site C/18: Sidewalk dedication is assumed to be pervious due to green street designation of
Edmonds Avenue NE as a “green street” in the City’s plans for the Sunset Area.
Site E/14, 16/17: The Sunset Oakes development would include pervious parking and pervious
sidewalks, if necessary to meet any impervious requirements and to be consistent with the
cumulative impervious range and cap evaluated for the Sunset Area NEPA/SEPA Record of
Decision.
Therefore, the 2019 Reevaluation Alternative is in the range of the prior analysis and no further
analysis or conditions are needed in association with the proposal.
The City communicated with NOAA in 2019 and received confirmation that no new formal
consultation is needed with regard to the ESA as the results are within the range previously received
in the 2011 letter of concurrence. (pers com, Janet Curran, NOAA to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton,
October 30, 2015) The analysis updated in 2019 has been submitted to NOAA and is anticipated
to receive a similar confirmation of consistency with prior conditions.
Should Site G/11 site be removed from the Master Site Plan in the future, the base impervious area
would not change as the site is undeveloped. The future impervious area would be reduced within
the Master Site Plan area. The site would be subject still to the City’s stormwater regulations. Once
removed the total area subject to the impervious surfaces limits would be reconfigured but more
similar in land area to the 2011 and 2014 acres.
2.6 PHASING
The redevelopment of the study area and broader neighborhood was anticipated to occur over a
number of years. The Master Site Plan sites are being phased over an approximate 10-year period
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 16
in approximately 5 phases. Phase 1 sites have approved site plans or are in active permit review.
Other phases are approximately estimated based on prior Master Site Plan evaluations. See
Exhibit 13.
Exhibit 13. Site Phasing
= Master Site Plan Sites
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, BERK 2016 ; BERK, 2019
2.7 MASTER SITE PLAN AND OTHER DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS
RHA proposes to amend the Master Site Plan per RMC 4-9-200 to reallocate units. For each Master
Site Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated. See Exhibit 14.
This Reevaluation and Addendum for the revised proposal will also result in minor revisions of the
ROD. Minor housekeeping amendments could be made to the PAO to update information about the
2019 reevaluation though there is no change to total dwellings or PAO mitigation measures.
Should Site G/11 be removed from the Master Site Plan in the future, a major Master Site Plan
amendment would be needed. In addition, the same conceptual site plan attached to the PAO would
be amended.
Other development permits and approvals would be required for implementing projects. These
could include lot line adjustments/subdivisions, right-of-way dedications and easements,
phased/detailed site plans and associated design modifications where appropriate. Lastly,
building and construction permits would be sought.
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site Phasing
RHA Sunset Terrace- Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
A Glennwood Townhomes Completed
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Completed
C 18 Edmonds Apartments/Homestead Willow Crest Townhomes Phase 1 Sunset Crest,
Phase 4 Edmonds
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments Phase 5
E 14,16/17 Sunset Park West Townhomes 2014 / Harrington Park 2016/ Sunset Oaks 2019 Phase 1
F 19 Sunset Court Townhomes 2014 / Sunset Court Apartments 2016 Completed
G 11 Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apts 2014 / Suncrest Homes 2016 / Solera 2019 Phase 1
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A Phase 1
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B Phase 2
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C Phase 3
K 10 Renton Highlands Library Completed
L Regional Stormwater Facility Completed
M Sunset Park Completed
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements Extended with Utilities
O NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements Extended with Utilities
X Library Site Phase 5
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 17
Exhibit 14. Matrix of Permits
= Sites permitted/constructed.
Sources: Veer, Schemata, Colpitts, City of Renton, Renton Housing Authority, BERK 2016 , BERK 2019.
Neighbor-
hood Site
Letter
Master
Plan Site
Project Name Master PlanHeight CUPDensity InterpretationParking Rate InterpretationStreet Reclass-ificationsNEPA/SEPA ReevaluationROD/Planned Action AmendmentLot Line Adjustment or SubdivisionROW Dedication / EasementsSite Plan ReviewDensity BonusMod: Open SpaceMod: TransparencyMod: Blank WallMod: ModulationBuilding & Construction PermitsRHA Sunset Terrace- Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
C 18 Edmonds Apartments/Homestead Willow Crest Townhomes X X X X X
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments X X X X X X X X
E 14, 16/17 Sunset Park West Townhomes 2014 / Harrington Park 2016/ Sunset Oaks 2019 X X X X X X X
F 19 Sunset Court Townhomes 2014 / Sunset Court Apartments 2016
G 11 Sunset Park East (Piha) Townhomes & Apts 2014 / Suncrest Homes 2016 / Solera 2019
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects
H 9 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A X X X X X X X X X X X
I 7/8 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B X X X X X X X X X X X X
J 6/7 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C X X X X X X X X X X X X
K Renton Highlands Library
L Regional Stormwater Facility
M Sunset Park
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements
O NE 10th Street Extension, Improvements
Approvals and Permits Summer 2014 Future Permits Permits with Site Plan Review
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 18
3 Environmental Analysis
The analysis of each element of the environment below compares the conclusions from the FEIS regarding
Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative to the 2019 Reevaluation Alternative. It concludes that the
revised Master Site Plan would not change results of the impact analysis or mitigation measures in the FEIS.
3.1 LAND USE
The Land Use analysis in the FEIS concluded that the Sunset Area subarea would advance the purposes of
the Comprehensive Plan and Center Village (CV) zoning district. It would serve as an incentive for other
redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Anticipated growth would also help the City meet its
2031 (now 2035) housing and employment targets. These conclusions are still valid for the 2019
Reevaluation Alternative which proposes housing and mixed uses consistent with zoning and developed in
coordination with the Master Site Plan.
3.2 AESTHETICS
As described in Section 2.2, the Reevaluation Alternative will reallocate dwelling units among sites, but all
sites will meet zoning densities, building heights and setbacks, open space, and landscaping per the code
or per the Master Site Plan approval in 2014. Design standards will apply.
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Master Site Plan area was evaluated for cultural resources in the 2011 EIS and again with the Master
Site Plan expansion in 2016. No sites were determined eligible. The ROD includes inadvertent discovery
conditions applicable throughout the study area.
3.4 TRANSPORTATION
Based on the results of the 2019 Reevaluation traffic analysis, overall transportation conditions are
expected to operate similarly to the FEIS Preferred Alternative, Alternative 3, and the 2014 Reevaluation
Alternative. The 2019 evaluation includes the Sunset Court site added in 2016. See Appendix A.
3.5 PARKS AND RECREATION
The Sunset Neighborhood Park has been constructed in accordance with the adopted Master Site Plan.
There are no changes to the FEIS results or prior Reevaluations in 2014 or 2016.
3.6 PUBLIC SERVICES
The overall conclusions of the FEIS for Selected Alternatives is expected to be similar for the Reevaluation
Alternative since growth is the same as projected for the overall neighborhood and is similar to the 2014
and 2016 Reevaluation proposal.
3.7 UTILITIES
3.7.1 Water and Sewer
Conceptual utility plans in the FEIS, City design manuals, and code requirements will apply to future
development.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 19
3.8 OTHER FEIS TOPICS
Generally, regarding natural environment topics (earth, air quality, water resources, plants and animals),
there are no anticipated changes to the overall conclusions or mitigation measures identified in the ROD
and PAO since the proposed mixed use development activities are essentially occurring within the same
footprint and the range of impervious estimates in the FEIS and ROD will be maintained.
Conditions, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding Environmental Health and Historic/Cultural
Features are likewise unchanged. No environmental health conditions or cultural resources features are
known in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but in case such features are uncovered
mitigation measures would apply.
Lastly, regarding socio-economics, housing, and environmental justice, overall conditions and impacts
regarding the potential for change in the neighborhood, need for replacement housing or vouchers, etc.
identified in the FEIS are still valid, as the study area continues to redevelop to a mixed use, amenity-rich
environment.
3.9 MONITORING AND REVIEW
The PAO includes monitoring and review measures to be considered within five years of the ordinance
adoption; some measures are to be considered at the time of a NEPA Reevaluation (compliance with
neighborhood goals and Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design rating system for Neighborhood
Development [LEED-ND] criteria or equivalent), though monitoring and review are directed to the Planned
Action area as a whole. The City conducted a review in the 2014 Reevaluation and 2016 Reevaluation.
The next 5-year milestone, based on the effective date of the amended ordinance in 2016, would occur in
2021.
Consistent with the PAO monitoring provisions, this Reevaluation provides a review of the Planned Action
Study Area Goals and Objectives and to the LEED-ND criteria in relation to the Reevaluation Alternative.
See Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16. Results show the 2019 Reevaluation Alternative continues to create a mixed
use, mixed income neighborhood supported by park, library, road, and stormwater improvements that
increase quality of life.
Exhibit 15. Goals and Objectives Reevaluation
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Transformation of private and public properties in
the Planned Action Study Area …is expected to
meet the Sunset Area Community vision, as
expressed in the Highlands Phase II Task Force
Recommendations (City of Renton 2008a) and the
CIS (City of Renton 2009b).
The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the
city and beyond.
The neighbors and businesses here are engaged
and involved in the community.
Neighborhood places are interconnected and
walkable.
The neighborhood feels safe and secure.
The Reevaluation Alternative is based on the prior
studied alternatives and continues to promote a
mixed-income, mixed-use development with parks,
library, and green streets to promote an
affordable, connected, walkable, and attractive
area for residents and businesses.
Since the approval of the Planned Action and
implementing Master Site Plan, affordable housing
has been developed at Sunset Court.
Neighborhood civic facilities have been built
including the library. The City has developed a
more walkable place with streets and streetscapes
improved consistent with the Master Site Plan. The
Sunset Neighborhood Park has been completed.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 20
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Neighborhood growth and development is
managed in a way that preserves quality of life.
The neighborhood is an attractive place to live
and conduct business.
The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.
The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic
diversity.
For each of the major components of the proposal,
the following specific goals and objectives were
developed to be consistent with this vision.
The entire Renton Sunset neighborhood is
considered a planned action area since 2011 per
Exhibit 2; growth and general types of land uses
are consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The PAO, effective in 2011 and amended in 2014
and 2016, remains in effect. The City may update
the PAO with the amended 2019 Master Site Plan
results.
The Reevaluation/Addendum demonstrates that the
Planned Action EIS conclusions remain valid. City
infrastructure investments for the planned action
area continue. For example, regional stormwater
and green streets have bene implemented and are
expected to continue to be implemented in the
neighborhood. A loop road has been implemented;
the Library site has been developed. The park was
enlarged and has been constructed.
1. Through designation of a Planned Action and
infrastructure investments, support and stimulate
public and private development.
2. Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform
to the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Reevaluation Alternative implements the City’s
Comprehensive Plan Commercial Mixed-Use
designation and furthers the intent of the CV zone
for a mixed-use center, providing housing, civic,
retail, and park uses.
3. Through the Planned Action and early
environmental review, accelerate the transformation
of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea with mixed-income housing and mixed uses
together with places for community gathering. This
will also be accomplished in part by using this EIS to
achieve a NEPA Record of Decision, which will
enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and
Disposition application in 2015.
See Response to #1. A Demolition and Disposition
permit was obtained for the Library site and a
second permit was obtained for the balance of the
site.
4. Ensure that the Planned Action covers
environmental review of Sunset Area roadway,
drainage, parks and recreation, and other
infrastructure improvements, and analyze impacts of
anticipated private development in addition to
Sunset Terrace.
See Response to #1. The total amount of growth
studied across the Planned Action study area
remains unchanged under the 2019 Reevaluation
Alternative; redistribution of some units was
evaluated in 2014, 2016, and 2019. Both public
and private development is promoted in the
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
as well as the broader neighborhood.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 21
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
5. Build on previous City, RHA, and Renton School
District efforts and current projects. Leverage
relationships and partner with existing community
outreach activities and resources. Recognize
community desires documented in:
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands
Area Citizen’s Zoning Task Force (City of Renton
2006),
Report and Recommendation of the Highlands
Phase II Task Force (City of Renton 2008a),
Highlands Action Plan (City of Renton 2009c),
Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy (City
of Renton 2009b),
Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Site Plan (City
of Renton 2009d),
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Natural Resources Plan (estimated completion
date September 2011),
Utility system plans, and
Library replacement (in process).
The Reevaluation Alternative continues to further the
prior planning efforts. The following has been
developed:
Replacement affordable housing at Sunset Court
A new library
A new larger neighborhood park
A regional stormwater facility
Harrington Avenue NE Greenstreet
Sunset Lane improvements
Early childhood education center has been
redeveloped
The subarea will have additional mixed income,
mixed use development as anticipated in the
Community Investment Strategy.
6. Create a Great Street on NE Sunset Boulevard,
as described in the CIS. Implement the City
Complete Streets policy for the NE Sunset
Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Area green
connections. Extend conceptual design of
improvements between the Interstate 405 limited
access right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE and
include them in the Planned Action effort.
The Reevaluation Alternative Master Site Plan
concept anticipates and recognizes the multimodal
design of NE Sunset Boulevard by matching the
future right of way boundary studied in the FEIS.
7. Encourage low-impact stormwater management
methods and area-wide solutions as part of a
master drainage plan to support development.
The Reevaluation Alternative would be developed
consistent with the Sunset Area drainage plan.
Regional stormwater in the central park and green
streets (e.g. Harrington Avenue NE) have been
accomplished with more green infrastructure
planned in future phases.
8. Engage the community in a transparent process
using available outreach opportunities and tools
successfully used in prior planning efforts.
The Reevaluation Alternative is similar to prior
studied alternatives that were developed with
public engagement opportunities. Public comment
opportunities are offered with some types of land
use permits (e.g. Notices of Application), or
amendments to the PAO.
9. Optimize funding strategies by leveraging
partnerships, innovation and sustainable
development for a healthy community. Recognize
the importance and timing of integrating housing,
transportation, infrastructure, expanded economic
The Reevaluation Alternative has resulted from a
public/private Master Site Plan coordination effort.
See response to #1 regarding infrastructure and
civic investments.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 22
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
opportunity, parks and recreation, and the
environment.
Source: FEIS, Appendix A, 2011; BERK 2014
The official 2014 LEED ND project scorecard3 published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a
guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group
on the scorecard, a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles of
LEED ND is provided in Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16. LEED for Neighborhood Development Criteria
Summary of Criteria Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage
criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to
encourage development to avoid environmentally
sensitive areas and to be focused within and near
existing communities where there are opportunities
to access services and reach destinations. There is a
preference for housing proximate to jobs. Access to
public transit is promoted to reduce vehicle trips.
Development in smart locations also encourages a
greater degree of walking of bicycling, which has
personal health benefits.
The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major
transportation and transit corridor within the City of
Renton. Redevelopment of the site under the
Reevaluation Alternative would contribute to a
mixed-use, mixed-income development already
served by the full range of public services on a
previously developed infill site on a major transit
corridor – a “smart location.” The Master Site Plan
concept anticipates and recognizes the multimodal
design of NE Sunset Boulevard by matching the
future right of way boundary studied in the FEIS.
The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and
Design criteria of the LEED ND rating system is to
promote safe, diverse, walkable, compact
neighborhoods with high-quality design with a mix
of land uses.
The Master Site Plan furthers the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use Commercial
designation and CV zone for a mixed-use center,
providing housing, civic, retail, and park uses. The
neighborhood is compact and furthers walkability
and quality design with a loop road, green streets,
and a new park and library.
The intent of the Green Infrastructure and
Buildings criteria is to encourage development that
implements green building practices or introduces
green infrastructure. This includes using certified
green building techniques, increasing building water
and energy efficiency, controlling pollution from
construction activities, implementing adaptive reuse
of historic buildings, and using green methods of
stormwater management.
The Reevaluation Alternative as expressed in the
amended Master Site Plan would implement FEIS
mitigation measures and retain green features of
prior studied alternatives, including:
Green Connections for Stormwater Management:
The Reevaluation Alternative continues the City’s
investment in Green Connections (Harrington
Avenue NE implemented), a regional stormwater
facility (built), and the drainage Master Site Plan
for the study area.
Construction Emission Control: The FEIS
recommends that the City require all construction
contractors to implement air quality control plans
3 See: Checklist: LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development. https://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-
development-checklist. Accessed: July 22, 2019.
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 23
Summary of Criteria Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
for construction activities in the study area,
including measures for reducing engine emissions
and fugitive dust.
Energy Efficiency: The FEIS recommends that the
City encourage or require implementation of
energy and greenhouse gas reduction measures
in the study area such as compliance with the
Northwest ENERGY STAR Homes program and
the Seattle Energy Code for non-residential
buildings.
Source: FEIS, Appendix A, 2011; BERK, 2014 and 2019.
4 Conclusions
The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance with
specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s)
regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume responsibility
for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD under NEPA.
Additionally, the City is the lead agency and proponent of the broader Planned Action for the Sunset area
which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Revised Code
of Washington [RCW] 43.21(C).
The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the Renton
Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final EIS to analyze potential impacts
of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. The Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011.
The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify any
areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall
Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping
process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly consulted
consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the Endangered Species Act
(Section 7). As documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record, the City received a letter of
concurrence from NMFS in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS memoranda are included in
the Environmental Review Record. The City also completed Section 106 consultation for Sunset Terrace
redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard as documented in the ROD and
Environmental Review Record. In addition, consistent with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the
City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington Department of Ecology (16 U.S.C. 1451-
1464).
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a ROD in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act and adopted a PAO in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
The ROD and PAO identified mitigation measures from the FEIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) concluded
that “[w]ith the application of City-adopted development regulations and recommended mitigation
measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no significant unavoidable adverse
impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to proceed with Sunset Terrace and
actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation measures imposed through appropriate
August 2019 | Renton Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum 24
conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of Renton and through
conditions of federal funding.” This Reevaluation and Addendum maintains the mitigation measures from
the EIS, ROD, and Planned Action and identifies where the application of such mitigation measures (e.g.,
design guidelines) is particularly relevant and could be included in permit conditions.
The City finds by this re-evaluation, after considering the effects of the revised Master Site Plan, as well
as existing and supplemental environmental documentation, that no substantive change to the findings in
the ROD would occur. The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately examines
the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in the Master Site Plan would not result in
modification to those conclusions. No new or significantly different impacts to the environment would occur.
Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS, and additional consultation and
mitigation documented in the ROD, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects of
the proposed project. Together, these measures and would reduce effects to acceptable levels. No
additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes proposed in the Master Site Plan.
Responsible Entity Certifying Officer
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
Date: Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of Renton and through
conditions of federal funding.”This Reevaluation and Addendum maintains the mitigation measures from
the EIS,ROD,and Planned Action and identifies where the application of such mitigation measures (e.g.,
design guidelines)is particularly relevant and could be included in permit conditions.
The City finds by this re-evaluation,after considering the effects of the revised Master Site Plan,as well
as existing and supplemental environmental documentation,that no substantive change to the findings in
the ROD would occur.The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately examines
the impacts of the overall prolect,and the proposed changes in the Master Site Plan would not result in
modification to those conclusions.No new or significantly different impacts to the environment would occur.
Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS,and additional consultation and
mitigation documented in the ROD,represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental effects of
the proposed prolect.Together,these measures and would reduce effects to acceptable levels,No
additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes proposed in the Master Site Plan.
Responsible Entity Certifying Officer
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
Date:qq/i Signature:_____________________
_z,f-
Signature:.
Signature:
August 201 9 I Renfon Sunset Community Area Reevaluation and Addendum I 24
BASIS OF BEARINGSREFERENCESSURVEYOR'S NOTESVICINITY MAPN.T.S.SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATESCHEDULE B ITEMSLEGAL DESCRIPTIONVERTICAL DATUMLEGENDALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYSUNSET OAKS N.T.S.CONTROL MAP
LEGENDALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYSUNSET OAKS
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS
5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra
321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
ph 206.596.7115
coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS
5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra
321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
ph 206.596.7115
coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
July 23, 2019
Project: Pre-construction assessment for property re-development at 1073 Harrington Ave NE,
Renton, WA. Parcel numbers 7227801315, 1310, and 1290.
Contact: Brent Chastain - Third Place Design 341 NE 91st Street Seattle, WA 98115
Phone – 206 920 9996 Email – Brent@thirdplacedesigncoop.com
Objectives: Evaluate health of existing trees and establish criteria for the preservation of those
to be retained.
Description: The proposed development is formed from a modified combination of six previous
lots which the Renton Housing Authority purchased between 2011 and 2014 (Figures 1 and 2).
Until 2015 five properties had numerous trees present, mainly along the lot lines (see Figure 2).
The same canopy configuration goes back at least twenty years as shown in Figure 3. The City of
Renton had the existing houses demolished in 2016. Post demolition the tree cover was reduced
by roughly sixty percent and the area bulldozed where the houses had been (Figure 4).
The RHA is now ready to proceed with developing the site and contracted with Third Place
Design. Their proposed site plan is shown in Figure 5. They in turn contacted Superior NW and
asked that a formal assessment of the remaining tree be made. The provided plan shows a large
evergreen in the center of the development and four others on the west side that currently exist.
There are a number of trees shown which will be installed post construction.
The following itemized list begins in the northwest corner of the property. It includes the trees
currently on the property and those within 10’ of the borders. The numeric designations are
reflected in the tree plot shown in Figure 6. The diameters measured were taken at the standard
height of 54” above grade (DSH) and the trees were tagged with 1” green circular markers.
1) Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 26.5” DSH, 25’ tall standing 10’ E of the rough
curb line/parking area along Glenwood Avenue and 16’ S of the NW corner marker.
The tree has been topped multiple times for power line clearance (Figure 7). It has a
full canopy which descends to near the 10’ level. The branches are somewhat
overextended and are encroaching on a utility pole in its NW quadrant as shown in
Figure 8. It has good new growth and color.
Enterprises
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
2) Douglas Fir 29” DSH, 70’ tall standing 65’ S of the #1 tree and 8’ E of the rough curb
line. It is in fair condition with average new growth and color. There is some
deadwood present and it has been pruned multiple times for power line clearance on
its west face. Its canopy extends down to the 12’ level. The SW corner of the previous
house was less than 15’ away from the base of the tree and the driveway ran fully
beneath its canopy as shown in Figure 9.
3) Douglas Fir 24” DSH, 65’ tall standing 36’ S of #2, 8’ E of the rough curb line, and at
the north end of a small stand. It is in fair condition and its canopy extends down to
the 12’ level although it mainly extends to north and is slightly over extended. There
is ivy present in the tree. It has been pruned for wire clearance multiple times. The
NW corner of the previous house was around 15’ back from the tree and its driveway
ran beneath the tree.
4) Douglas Fir 17.5” DSH, 65’ tall standing 4’ SW of the #3 tree. All its canopy extends
to the west except for at the very top. It has somewhat limited new growth and decent
color. It has been pruned multiple times for wire clearance. There is ivy present in the
tree.
5) Douglas Fir 18” DSH, 60’ tall standing 7’ S of the #4 tree. There is not much canopy
on this tree. Most of it is on the east side in a narrow column and then there is a little
foliage on the west side starting at the half way point and running nearly in a single
branch width. It has noticeably limited new growth and poor color. It has been pruned
multiple times for wire clearance. There is ivy present in the tree. A crow’s or hawk’s
nest is visible at the very top.
6) Douglas Fir 25” DSH, 65’ tall standing 5’ S of #5, 8’ E of the existing edge of the
asphalt for Glenwood Avenue, 24’ N of a set of new water meters, and at the south
end of the stand. It has fair color but below average new growth. Its canopy extends
down to the 12’ level, almost entirely extends to the south, and is slightly over
extended. There is ivy present in the tree. It has been pruned for wire clearance
multiple times. The west side of the previous house was close to 20’ back from the
tree.
7) Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum) 40” DSH, 55’ tall, 28’ radial spread standing 65’
nearly due east of the #2 fir. The tree is in decline with poor color, stunted new
growth, deadwood and die back throughout the canopy, and it is already showing
color changes at the extremities. It has a cavity low on the west side with a 7”
diameter opening. The previous house was 25’ west of the maple’s base. There had
been several smaller trees or quite large shrubs standing between this tree and the #8
fir to its east prior to the demolition event as shown in Figure 2.
8) Douglas Fir 28” DSH, 70’ tall standing 55’ ESE of the #7 maple. The top of the tree
was damaged near the 55’mark and it now exhibits multiple stems above that level
(see Figure 10). It has average new growth and color. There have been recent
breakouts along the SE quadrant probably due to snow loading.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
9) Pacific Dogwood (Cornus nuttalli) 13” DSH, 35’ tall, 9’ spread standing near the
center line on the south side of the parcel. The tree is in weak condition with little to
no new growth and poor color. An 8” caliper branch cracked out low on the stem and
tore into the quick of the tree. Another 6” caliper branch broke out about 18” higher
on the stem. The tree is nearly engulfed in English Laurel and holly.
10) Red Alder (Alnus rubra) 36” DSH, 45’ tall, 25’ spread standing 45’ W of the #9 tree
at the south end of the parcel. It has advanced decay present along the column and
the main scaffolds. The upper half of the canopy is dead. Before the demolition event
this tree was surrounded by a dense thicket of other shrubs/small trees. Currently
there is nothing around the tree but grass and weeds.
Methods: Tree assessment is both an art and a science. To properly perform, an arborist must
have an extensive background in biology, tree mechanics, and tree structure that is equal parts
academic and field knowledge. It takes years of study to recognize and correctly diagnose the
subtle signs trees exhibit before their failure, whether it be partial or total. The process begins
with a visual inspection (visual tree assessment, VTA) which is followed up as necessary with
soundings, core testing, and/or other detection means. Each tree is examined and evaluated
according to several factors including species type, size, vigor, injuries present, root and grade
disturbance, deadwood, location and extent of decay, stem taper, exposure, and targets that are at
risk.
Discussion: Of the ten trees listed only the #3-6 and #8 firs are noted for retention. The other
trees currently present are located in areas which will be occupied by structures.
The #8 Douglas Fir is shown in Figure 5 with a 20’ radial space (a little more in the NE and SW
quadrants) left within which it is to live. Trees can accept some loss of rooting space and still
survive but the arboricultural industry accepted threshold is thirty percent. In the given scenario
the tree will lose over 50% of its Critical Rooting Area. If the tree is meant to be a long term
asset for the campus then this area has to be increased to at least a 23.5’ radial circle. This could
be accomplished by making the pathways around the tree fully permeable.
Pre-grading and excavation a hard fence will have to be set up around this tree at a distance of
25’ radial feet. The area within the fence should be covered with 6-8” of arbormulch. When it is
time to do the improvement work within the fencing (the paths, the parking, the corner of
Building B East’s foundation forms) it will have to be overseen by an arborist to document the
degree and nature of the impact. The path should be cut and set by hand if in any way possible.
All the mulch would be left around the tree once construction is finished. No grass should be
planted. The only plants which should be installed would be those commonly found around firs
naturally. Salal, evergreen or deciduous huckleberries, rhododendron species, vine maples
(native or Japanese varietals), and the like would be acceptable choices.
The top of the tree will have to be pruned to create a stronger long term structure. Depending on
what the climbing arborist finds it could be that the tree will need ongoing care on a five to seven
year basis. The tree would definitely benefit from a deep root feed at the end of the construction
process to help it cope with impact stress.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Based on the historical imagery shown in Figure 2 it is clear that the #3-6 firs incurred root
disturbance well within their Critical Root Zones (CRZ). This is the area defined as one radial
foot per inch of tree diameter. Trenching type incursion, that is excavation that occurs along
only one sector of a tree’s CRZ, can reach significantly into the root growth area without having
a detrimental long term effect. What does have to be absolutely protected is a tree’s Structural
Root Plate (SRP). This radial area is related to the diameter inches of the tree in question but not
quite in such a direct proportion. Figure 11 below illustrates the relationship.
Figure 11. Size of the Structural Root Plate in relation to tree stem diameter. Note
that the SRP levels off at 10’ for any tree over 24” in diameter (Coder, 1996).
In the case of the four firs mentioned above, the excavation of the existing house’s foundation on
their east side occurred between 12’ and 17’ from their bases. This would have been well outside
any of the fours’ SRP. The proposed walkway to their north is 20’ away; again well outside the
SRP for the #3 tree. The new foundation work for Building B West could come as near as 18’ to
the base of the trees. This will still not affect the Structural Root Plates of any of the four trees.
However, if the City of Renton is going to ask that a sidewalk is installed on the west side of the
trees or that any other hardscaping improvement be made which requires a change in grade, these
trees will be severely impacted. Installing sidewalk will necessitate the removal of all four due to
compromising their structural stability. Any other improvements on the west side will have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis.
Protection fencing for the stand should be set at the full CRZ distance for the larger two, namely
twenty-five radial feet on three sides. On the west it will have to be limited to being at the curb
line or just slightly beyond as traffic safety dictates. The area within the protection fencing
should be filled with 6-8” of arbormulch and arborist oversite is dictated when work has to occur
within the protection zone.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Waiver of Liability Because the science of tree risk assessment is constantly broadening its
understanding, it cannot be said to be an exact science. Every tree is different and performing
tree risk assessment is a continual learning process. Many variables beyond the control, or
immediate knowledge, of the arborist involved may adversely affect a tree and cause its
premature failure. Internal cracks and faults, undetectable root rot, unexposed construction
damage, interior decay, and even nutrient deficiencies can be debilitating factors. Changes in
circumstance and condition can also lead to a tree’s rapid deterioration and resulting instability.
All trees have a risk of failure. As they increase in stature and mass their risk of breakdown also
increases, eventual failure is inevitable.
While every effort has been taken to provide the most thorough and accurate snapshot of the
trees’ health, it is just that, a snapshot, a frozen moment in time. These findings do not guarantee
future safety nor are they predictions of imminent events. It is the responsibility of the property
owner to adequately care for the tree(s) in question by utilizing the proper professionals and to
schedule future assessments in a timely fashion.
This report and all attachments, enclosures, and references, are confidential and are for the use of
Brent Chastain, Third Place Design, the Renton Housing Authority, and their representatives
only. They may not be reproduced, used in any way, or disseminated in any form without the
prior consent of the client concerned.
Anthony Moran, BS
Certified Arborist
Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
ISA #PN-5847A
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 1. New parcel configuration.
Figure 2. Aerial view of the six lots circa 2015 showing prevoius configuration.
Note the concentration of trees along the perimeter of the properties.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 3. Aerial view from 2000 showing nearly the same canopy coverage.
Figure 4. Aerial view circa 2017 showing the new parcel post demolition.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 5. Concept of site redevelopment.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 6. Current aerial view of subject property. The white numerals correspond to the
nomenclature in the description section and show rough placement of the indicated trees.
Please refer to the most recent survey for exact locations.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 7. Photo of the #1 Douglas Fir taken during the July 2019 site visit.
Figure 8. Photo of the #1 fir showing encroachment on the utility pole at the NW
corner of the parcel.
13110 NE 177th Place #304 * Woodinville, WA 98072 * Anthony@SuperiorNW.com
206-930-5724
Figure 9. Enlargement of the 2015 aerial photo showing driveways
running under the #2 and #3 firs.
Figure 10. Photo of the top of the #8 fir showing the weak structural formation.
12131 113th Avenue NE, Suite 203, Kirkland, WA 98034 | 425.821.3665 |
FINAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 11, 2019 TG:1.19223.00
To: Brianne Bannwarth – City of Renton
From: Stefanie Herzstein PE, PTOE and Francesca Liburdy – Transpo Group
cc: Bob Baldwin – McCullough Allen
Lisa Grueter, AICP – BERK Consulting
Subject: Renton Sunset Oaks Final Transportation Impact Analysis
This analysis identifies potential transportation-related impacts associated with the proposed
Sunset Oaks residential development north of NE 10th Street between Glenwood Avenue NE and
Harrington Avenue NE in Renton, WA. This final transportation impact analysis incorporates City
staff’s review of the study.
Background
The project is sites 14, 16 and 17 in the Sunset Terrace Master Plan as shown on Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Sunset Terrace Master Plan
2
Transportation-related impacts of the Master Plan were documented in the Sunset Area
Community Planned Action Update: Traffic Analysis Results - May 2014 Redevelopment Master
Site Plan Alternative (CH2MHill, 2014). The proposed project includes more dwellings than
included in the current Master Plan and requires Master Plan revisions to reallocate dwelling units
to the Renton Housing Authority Sunset Oaks properties and reflect other public, private and non-
profit development activities that have been permitted or constructed in the last several years.
Transportation analysis associated with the Sunset Terrace Master Plan reallocation of 87
dwelling units including 52 dwelling units to the Sunset Oaks properties was documented in the
memorandum Sunset Oaks and Master Site Plan: Transportation Analysis prepared by Transpo
Group dated July 23, 2019. The analysis of the Master Plan dwelling unit reallocation found that
there would be no new transportation impacts and the mitigation measures identified in the
previous Master Plan analysis would be appropriate. Based on the 2030 build-out of the Master
Plan, mitigation measures identified include potential improvements to the Edmonds Avenue
NE/NE 12th Street and Harrington Avenue NE/NE 12th Street intersections to maintain LOS D
operations. As an affordable housing residential project, payment of the City’s transportation
impact fees would not be required, These findings are being incorporated into updated
SEPA/NEPA analysis for the Sunset Terrace Master Plan.
The following documents the project-specific transportation impact analysis (TIA) for the Sunset
Oaks property.
Project Description
The proposed project includes up to 62 affordable multifamily housing units located in the Sunset
Area neighborhood of Renton. The site vicinity is shown on Figure 2.
Figure 2 – Site Vicinity
The project site is currently undeveloped and the project is anticipated to be constructed and
occupied by 2021. Vehicle access to the site is proposed via Harrington Avenue NE and
3
Glennwood Avenue NE. There would also be a non-motorized connection via Sunset Lane NE.
Figure 3 shows the site plan depicting the proposed site and driveways.
Figure 3 – Preliminary Site Plan
Study Scope
The scope of the analysis is consistent with the City of Renton’s Traffic Impact Analysis Policy
Guidelines for New Developments (2016) and was reviewed and approved by the City through a
scoping process. Based on coordination with the City, the analysis focuses on the weekday PM
peak hour. Considering anticipated trip distribution patterns described later in the study and the
City’s guidelines stating the study area should include intersections experiencing a 5 percent
increase in peak hour traffic volumes as a result of the proposed development, the analysis
focuses on the two site access locations under future with-project conditions.
As described previously, the proposed project is part of the Sunset Terrace Master Plan
Amendment1 and a separate transportation analysis was conducted related to the reallocation of
dwelling units. The Master Plan analysis evaluated traffic volume impacts at the NE 12th Street/
Harrington Avenue NE, NE Sunset Boulevard/NE 10th Street, and NE Sunset Boulevard/
Harrington Avenue NE intersections and found that there would be a 0.5 to 2.4 percent in total
intersection volumes at these locations as a result of the proposed Master Plan Amendment. This
increase in traffic volumes is less than the City’s 5 percent threshold used to determine the study
area for project-specific TIAs. This analysis supports limiting the study intersections for the Sunset
Oaks development TIA to the site accesses.
1 Memorandum Sunset Oaks and Master Site Plan: Transportation Analysis, Transpo Group, July 2019.
4
Existing Transportation Context
The following section summarizes the existing transportation context of the proposed project,
including the surrounding roadway network, non-motorized facilities, transit, traffic safety, and
vehicle volumes.
Roadway Network
The project site is located in the City of Renton and is bounded by Glennwood Avenue NE,
Harrington Avenue NE, and Sunset Lane NE. Descriptions of the roadways within the project area
are provided below.
Glennwood Avenue NE is classified as a local street and has a narrow travel way. On-street
parking occurs on the shoulder on both sides of the street narrowing the travel way further. The
posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph). No sidewalks are provided along Glennwood
Avenue NE in the vicinity of the project.
Harrington Avenue NE is classified as a local street and has two lanes per direction. The posted
speed limit is 25 mph. Sidewalks and on-street parking are provided on both sides of the street.
Sunset Lane NE is classified as a local street with a posted speed of 25 mph. It has a narrow
travel way. Sidewalks and on-street parking are provided on both sides of the street.
Non-Motorized Facilities
Sidewalks are provided throughout the study area with the exception of Glennwood Avenue NE.
Marked crosswalks are provided at the Glennwood Avenue NE/Sunset Lane NE and Harrington
Avenue NE/Sunset Lane NE intersections. No bicycle facilities are provided in the vicinity of the
project site; however, the roadways are local streets with low traffic volumes.
Transit
The project site is located in proximity to transit operated by King County Metro. There are
numerous stops along NE Sunset Blvd and NE 12th Avenue, nearby principal arterial roadways.
The closest bus stops are located a 0.2 mile walking distance or an approximately 5-minute walk
from the project site. Connections to King County Metro routes near the project site are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Transit Service
Approximate Weekday
Operating Hours
AM Peak
Period Trips
PM Peak
Period Trips
Headways
(minutes) Routes Area Served
111 Maplewood to Lake Kathleen to
Downtown Seattle
5:50 a.m. – 8:45 a.m.
4 4 30
4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
240 Bellevue to Renton 5:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. 7 7 15
105 Renton Highlands to Renton TC 4:30 a.m. – 12:10 a.m. 3 3 30
Source: King County Metro (August 2019).
The King County Metro transit service provides access to the Renton Transit Center, which is
located approximately 3-miles south of the Sunset Terrace neighborhood. Connections at Renton
Transit Center provide bus access to SeaTac, Kent, Auburn, Bellevue, and Overlake via both King
County Metro and Sound Transit. There is a proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) expansion along I-
405 slated to be completed by Sound Transit in year 2024. There would be a stop at the Renton
Transit Center.
5
Traffic Safety
Collision records were reviewed within the study area to document potential traffic safety issues.
The collision data from Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) is for the most
recent 5-year period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. A historical review of
collisions was conducted at the roadways directly surrounding the site. Only one collision was
reported along the roadways and intersections directly adjacent to the project area. In 2016, a
vehicle making a northbound left-turn onto Sunset Lane NE out of a driveway 200-feet east of
Harrington Avenue NE had a collision with a bicyclist. There were no reported fatalities within or
surrounding the study area.
Trip Generation
The proposed project includes up to 62-multifamily affordable housing units. Trip generation
estimates have been prepared for the development based on trip rates identified using the Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Table 2 provides a
summary of the trip generation for the proposed land use.
Table 2. Estimated Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation
Land Use Size
Daily
Trips
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
In Out Total In Out Total
Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise (LU #221) 62 du 337 6 16 22 16 11 27
Notes: du = dwelling units
As shown in Table 2, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 337 daily
vehicle trips with approximately 22 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 27 trips during the
weekday PM peak hour.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
Weekday PM peak hour trip distribution patterns to and from the project site were based on
existing vehicle travel patterns and the U.S. Census Bureau’s OnTheMap tool. OnTheMap is a
web-based mapping and reporting application, which shows where residents in the area work
based on census data. Project traffic was assigned to the site driveways based on the trips’
anticipated final destination and the location of the dwelling units. Anticipated trip distribution and
assignment for the proposed project are shown on Figure 4.
Traffic Volumes
Existing weekday PM (4 to 6 p.m.) peak period traffic counts were collected at the Harrington
Avenue NE/Glennwood Avenue NE, Glennwood Avenue NE/NE 10th Street, and Harrington
Avenue NE/NE 10th Street intersections in August 2019. These volumes were used to develop
future traffic forecasts at the proposed site accesses. Detailed intersection traffic counts are
provided in Attachment A.
Future (2021) with-project weekday PM peak hour traffic volumes were estimated by growing
existing traffic volumes by three (3) percent per year to 2021 conditions, consistent with other
projects completed in the City. No pipeline projects were identified within the study area. The
resulting future (2021) with-project volumes at the site accesses are summarized on Figure 4.
6
Figure 4 – Trip Distribution, Assignment & Future Weekday PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Site Access Analysis
The traffic operations at each of the site driveways was analyzed under future with-project
conditions for the weekday PM peak hour. At unsignalized side-street stop-controlled
intersections, LOS is measured by the average delay per vehicle of the worst-movement. Traffic
operations and average vehicle delay for an intersection can be described qualitatively with a
range of levels of service (LOS A through LOS F), with LOS A indicating free-flowing traffic and
LOS F indicating extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. The operational analysis is
consistent with Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition method and evaluated in Synchro 10.
Synchro 10 is a software program that uses the HCM method to evaluate intersection LOS and
average vehicle delays.
Under future (2021) with-project conditions, both site accesses are anticipated to operate at LOS
A during the weekday PM peak hour with approximately 9 seconds of delay. LOS worksheets are
included in Attachment B.
7
Mitigation Measures
As discussed previously, mitigation measures identified for the Sunset Terrace Master Plan
include potential improvements to the Edmonds Avenue NE/NE 12th Street and Harrington
Avenue NE/NE 12th Street intersections to maintain LOS D operations. As an affordable housing
residential project, payment of the City’s transportation impact fees will not be required.
Intersection Improvements
The proposed project’s anticipated increase in traffic volumes at the Edmonds Avenue NE/NE
12th Street and Harrington Avenue NE/NE 12th Street intersections is anticipated to be small and
less than 5 percent as demonstrated in the Master Plan Amendment analysis and shown on
Figure 4 of this study.
A review of the Sunset Court project-specific TIA2 shows that the Edmonds Avenue NE and
Harrington Avenue NE intersections along NE 12th Street were anticipated to operate at LOS B or
better during the weekday PM peak hour under future 2017 conditions. A sensitivity analysis was
conducted by Transpo to understand potential future 2021 with-project conditions at the Edmonds
Avenue NE/NE 12th Street and Harrington Avenue NE/NE 12th Street intersections. The
sensitivity analysis uses the Sunset Court traffic volumes to project 2021 conditions assuming a
three (3) percent per year growth rate and adding the project traffic. The Edmonds Avenue NE/NE
12th Street and Harrington Avenue NE/NE 12th Street intersections would operate at LOS B
during the weekday PM peak hour in 2021; therefore, no mitigation would be needed with the
proposed project.
Conclusions
Key findings of this TIA include:
· The proposed project would generate approximately 337 daily vehicle trips with 22
weekday AM peak hour and 27 weekday PM peak hour trips.
· Both site accesses are forecast to operate at LOS A during the weekday PM Peak
hour under future (2021) with-project conditions.
· No significant impacts requiring mitigation are anticipated with the proposed project.
2 Ally Community Development, LLC Traffic Impact Analysis Sunset Court, Perteet, September 10, 2015.
8
Attachment A: Traffic Counts
Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
HARRINGTON AVE NE HARRINGTON AVE NEGLENWOOD AVE NEGLENWOOD AVE NE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:1 HARRINGTON AVE NE & GLENWOOD AVE NE PM
Thursday, August 1, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk3120
0
1
1
0
4
39 41
1
2
3735
5
4 N
S
EW
0
0 3313600GLENWOOD AVE NE
GLENWOOD AVE NEHARRINGTON AVEHARRINGTON AV82
0
214N
S
EW 1110
0 0
40Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 630 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 90 0 0 1
4:15 PM 730 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9 170 0 0 2
4:30 PM 750 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 160 0 0 3
4:45 PM 780 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 0 0 5 210 0 0 4
5:00 PM 820 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 1 4 191 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 12 190 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 9 190 0 0 2
5:45 PM 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 1 8 250 0 0 1
Count Total 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 2 59 1 3 53 1451 0 0 13
Peak Hour 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 36 1 2 33 821 0 0 3
HV% PHF
0.42
0.25
0.77
0.75
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
5.1%
3.7% 0.82
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 0000
0
0
0
0
0
2 1
0
0
12
0
0 N
S
EW
0
0 20100Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 1 0 2 3
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 1 0 2 3
Peak Hour 0 1 0 2 3
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 4 1 5
4:15 PM 0 0 2 1 3
4:30 PM 1 0 3 0 4
4:45 PM 3 0 0 0 3
5:00 PM 4 0 1 0 5
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0 2
Count Total 8 1 11 2 22
Peak Hour 4 1 2 0 7
Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
GLENWOOD AVE NESUNSET LN NESUNSET LN NE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:2 GLENWOOD AVE NE & SUNSET LN NE PM
Thursday, August 1, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk3034
6
0
0
2
5
6 9
10
57
9 N
S
EW
0
0 0SUNSET LN NE
SUNSET LN NE GLENWOOD AVE 23
1
02N
S
EW 000 1
02Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 170 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 40 2 0
4:15 PM 220 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 50 1 2
4:30 PM 200 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 50 1 0
4:45 PM 180 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 0 1
5:00 PM 230 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 90 1 1
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 1 0
5:30 PM 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 30 0 0
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 80 2 2
Count Total 0 6 5 0 0 11 0 4 0 400 8 6
Peak Hour 0 5 2 0 0 6 0 3 0 230 4 3
HV% PHF
0.88
0.63
0.50
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0% 0.64
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 0000
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
00
0 N
S
EW
0
0 0Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 0 0 0 0
Peak Hour 0 0 0 0
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 1 1
4:45 PM 0 0 1 1
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 1 0 1 2
5:30 PM 1 0 0 1
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0
Count Total 2 0 3 5
Peak Hour 2 0 1 3
Peak Hour:05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
HARRINGTON AVE NENE 10TH STSUNSET LN NE
(303) 216-2439
www.alltrafficdata.net
Location:3 HARRINGTON AVE NE & NE 10TH ST PM
Thursday, August 1, 2019Date:
All Vehicles Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk
Traffic Counts - All Vehicles
Heavy Vehicles
Peak Hour
Traffic Counts - Heavy Vehicles and Pedestrians/Bicycles in Crosswalk303039
8
0
0
4
1
33 40
47
345
11 N
S
EW
0
0 0SUNSET LN NE
NE 10TH ST HARRINGTON AV85
1
69N
S
EW 421 0
90Interval
Start Time RightLeft Thru Total
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
U-Turn
Rolling
HourRightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn RightLeft ThruU-Turn
4:00 PM 540 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 80 3 1
4:15 PM 690 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 140 3 3
4:30 PM 670 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 150 6 2
4:45 PM 700 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 170 11 0
5:00 PM 850 0 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 230 13 1
5:15 PM 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 120 4 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 180 9 1
5:45 PM 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 14 0 320 13 1
Count Total 0 3 7 0 0 12 0 46 0 1390 62 9
Peak Hour 0 1 4 0 0 8 0 30 0 850 39 3
HV% PHF
0.63
0.73
0.55
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
1.2% 0.66
EB
WB
NB
SB
All 0010
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
10
0 N
S
EW
0
0 0Heavy VehiclesInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 0 0 0
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 0 0 1 1
Count Total 0 0 1 1
Peak Hour 0 0 1 1
Pedestrians/Bicycles on CrosswalkInterval
Start Time EB NB TotalWB SB
4:00 PM 0 1 0 1
4:15 PM 0 0 0 0
4:30 PM 0 1 0 1
4:45 PM 2 0 0 2
5:00 PM 5 4 0 9
5:15 PM 1 0 1 2
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0
5:45 PM 3 2 0 5
Count Total 11 8 1 20
Peak Hour 9 6 1 16
9
Attachment B: LOS Worksheets
HCM 6th TWSC Sunset Oaks Apartments
4: Glennwood Ave NE & Site Access Future (2021) With-Project PM Peak Hour
Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1 10 7 1 5
Future Vol, veh/h 4 1 10 7 1 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0
Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 4 1 11 8 1 5
Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 22 15 0 0 19 0
Stage 1 15 - - - - -
Stage 2 7 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 - - 4.12 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 - - 2.218 -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 995 1065 - - 1597 -
Stage 1 1008 - - - - -
Stage 2 1016 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 994 1065 - - 1597 -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 994 - - - - -
Stage 1 1008 - - - - -
Stage 2 1015 - - - - -
Approach WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 0 1.2
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBL SBT
Capacity (veh/h) - - 1007 1597 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.005 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) - - 8.6 7.3 0
HCM Lane LOS - - A A A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 0 -
HCM 6th TWSC Sunset Oaks Apartments
5: Harrington Ave NE & Site Access Future (2021) With-Project PM Peak Hour
Transpo Group Synchro 10 Report
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.2
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 5 7 40 35 1
Future Vol, veh/h 1 5 7 40 35 1
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 0 - - - - -
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 1 5 8 43 38 1
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 98 39 39 0 - 0
Stage 1 39 - - - - -
Stage 2 59 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 6.42 6.22 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.42 - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.42 - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.518 3.318 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 901 1033 1571 - - -
Stage 1 983 - - - - -
Stage 2 964 - - - - -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 896 1033 1571 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 896 - - - - -
Stage 1 978 - - - - -
Stage 2 964 - - - - -
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 8.6 1.1 0
HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT EBLn1 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1571 - 1007 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - 0.006 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 7.3 0 8.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS A A A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0 - -
coterra
321 3rd Avenue South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.596.7115
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT
Project: Renton Housing Authority
Sunset Oaks Apartments
Renton, WA 98056
Prepared For: Renton Housing Authority
2900 NE 10th St
Renton, WA 98056
Prepared By: Max Berde, PE
Reviewed By: Peter Apostol, PE
Date: September 3, 2019
ENGINEERING PLLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Subject Page No.
SECTION I PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................1
SECTION II CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY ...................15
SECTION III OFFSITE ANALYSIS ......................................................................19
SECTION IV FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY
FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ..........................................23
SECTION V CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ................27
SECTION VI SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES .............................................27
SECTION VII OTHER PERMITS ...........................................................................27
SECTION VIII EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ......................................27
SECTION IX BOND QUANTITIES AND
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS ...............................................28
SECTION X OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL .......................28
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP .................................................................................4
FIGURE 2 TIR WORKSHEET ............................................................................5
FIGURE 3 EXISTING SITE SOILS...................................................................12
FIGURE 4 EXISTING LAND COVER .............................................................13
FIGURE 5 DEVELOPED LAND COVER ........................................................14
LIST OF APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A CIVIL PLANS
APPENDIX B FLOW CONTROL/DETENTION CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
APPENDIX E CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX F DRAINAGE REVIEW FLOWCHART
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 1 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION I – PROJECT OVERVIEW
General Description:
The proposed Sunset Oaks Apartment project includes the construction of three multi-
story apartment buildings on a proposed 1.053 acre lot currently consisting of five
currently-undeveloped parcels. The existing five parcels were previously developed as
single-family homes and previously demolished. Proposed project includes on-site
parking, landscaping, frontage improvements on Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington
Ave NE, and associated utility and storm drainage improvements. The project proposes to
construct a public alley between Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE on the
northern margin of the site. The alley will be dedicated to the City of Renton. The project
site, located in the City of Renton, is bounded by Glennwood Ave NE to the west,
Harrington Ave NE to the east, Sunset Lane NE (NE 10th Street) to the south, and
residential parcels to the north (see Figure 1 for vicinity map).
The proposed project has been designed to meet the requirements of the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). A summary of the project data is
provided in the TIR worksheet (see Figure 2).
Site Soils:
The NRCS map (see Figure 3) of the site shows a majority of the site consisting of
“Arents, Alderwood material “ with a small portion of the west side of the site consisting
of “Ragnar-Indianola” soils. Additional information on the site’s soils is provided in a
geotechnical report prepared by Zipper Geo Associates, LLC, and dated May 15, 2019.
The findings of the report are based on soil samples taken from five borings that were
excavated on-site. In general, the results of the borings uncovered 3’-12” of medium
dense to dense sand with variable silt and gravel contents. Below that layer the borings
encountered very dense sand with variable silt and gravel contents that the geotechnical
engineer interprets to be glacial till. For more information, see the geotechnical report
included in Appendix D.
Predeveloped Conditions:
The existing site is currently undeveloped with areas of impervious remaining from
demolition and clearing of the former single-family residences on the 5 project parcels.
The remainder of the site is considering to be pervious, former landscaping, consisting of
till grass for stormwater modeling purposes. There are several significant trees spread
throughout the site. The project site consists of one Threshold Discharge Area which is
defined by the City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual as: “an onsite area draining
to a single natural discharge location, or multiple natural discharge locations that
combine within one-quarter –mile downstream.”
The site is generally flat with stormwater runoff draining overland generally north to
south towards Sunset Lane NE.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 2 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
The existing land coverage of the project site is presented in the table below. The
existing site is presented graphically in Figure 4 which follows this section. The
downstream path of stormwater runoff is described in the offsite analysis in Section III.
Table 1 – Existing Site Land Coverage (Acres)
Impervious
(Acres)
Pervious
Till Grass
(Acres)
Total
(Acres)
Project Site 0.250 0.803 1.053
Developed Conditions:
The proposed developed condition includes three apartment buildings with at-grade
parking stalls adjacent to and within the buildings; a public alley at the northern margin
of the site; pedestrian walkways; and associated storm drainage, utility, and landscape
improvements. The following table quantifies the areas of the proposed land coverage.
The proposed site is presented graphically in Figure 5 which follows this section.
Table 2 – Developed Site Land Coverage (Acres)
Rooftop
(Acres)
Hardscape
(Acres)
Grass/
Landscape
(Acres)
Total
(Acres)
Project Site 0.433 0.380 0.240 1.053
The existing site topography will not be dramatically altered in the proposed condition.
In general, the site will continue to drain from north to south towards Sunset Lane NE as
it currently does in the existing condition.
The proposed improvements within the project site described above and delineated in
Table 2 trigger both flow control and water quality mitigation per the City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual.
Stormwater runoff will be collected by roof drains, catch basins, and area drains. Per
Core Requirement #4 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual, the
proposed conveyance system will be designed to convey runoff resulting from the peak
rates resulting from the 25-year storm event. The proposed flow control facility is a
detention tank located under the northwest parking lot and which will discharge to the
existing 18” storm drainage main in Glennwood Ave NE to the west. Permeable
pavements throughout the project site, including pervious asphalt and pervious concrete
sidewalks, will provide water quality treatment. See Section IV for a detailed description
of the design of the flow control and water quality facilities.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 3 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
FIGURE 1 – VICINITY MAP
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 4 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
FIGURE 2
CITY OF RENTON
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 8-A-1
REFERENCE 8-A
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR)
WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Owner _____________________________
Phone ___________________________________
Address __________________________________
_________________________________________
Project Engineer ___________________________
Company _________________________________
Phone ___________________________________
Project Name __________________________
CED Permit # ________________________
Location Township ________________
Range __________________
Section _________________
Site Address __________________________
_____________________________________
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.)
Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)
Grading
Right-of-Way Use
Other _______________________
DFW HPA
COE 404
DOE Dam Safety
FEMA Floodplain
COE Wetlands
Other ________
Shoreline
Management
Structural
Rockery/Vault/_____
ESA Section 7
Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Type of Drainage Review
(check one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
Full
Targeted
Simplified
Large Project
Directed
__________________
__________________
__________________
Plan Type (check
one):
Date (include revision
dates):
Date of Final:
Full
Modified
Simplified
__________________
__________________
__________________
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2
Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket
Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2)
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes / No
Start Date: _______________________
Completion Date: _______________________
Describe: _________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________
Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________
Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________
Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
River/Stream ________________________
Lake ______________________________
Wetlands ____________________________
Closed Depression ____________________
Floodplain ___________________________
Other _______________________________
_______________________________
Steep Slope __________________________
Erosion Hazard _______________________
Landslide Hazard ______________________
Coal Mine Hazard ______________________
Seismic Hazard _______________________
Habitat Protection ______________________
_____________________________________
REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-3
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type
______________________
______________________
______________________
______________________
Slopes
________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
Erosion Potential
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)
Other ________________________________
Sole Source Aquifer
Seeps/Springs
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE
Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________
Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________
SEPA________________________________
LID Infeasibility________________________
Other________________________________
_____________________________________
LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Additional Sheets Attached
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet
per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold Discharge Area:
(name or description)
Core Requirements (all 8 apply):
Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations:
Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________
Flow Control (include facility
summary sheet)
Standard: _______________________________
or Exemption Number: ____________
On-site BMPs: _______________________________
Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________
Erosion and Sediment Control /
Construction Stormwater Pollution
Prevention
CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________
Contact Phone: _________________________
After Hours Phone: _________________________
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet
per Threshold Discharge Area)
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public
If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No
Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No
Water Quality (include facility
summary sheet)
Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog
or Exemption No. _______________________
Special Requirements (as applicable):
Area Specific Drainage
Requirements
Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None
Name: ________________________
Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None
100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________
Datum:
Flood Protection Facilities Describe:
Source Control
(commercial / industrial land use)
Describe land use:
Describe any structural controls:
Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No
Treatment BMP: _________________________________
Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No
with whom? _____________________________________
Other Drainage Structures
Describe:
REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 12/12/2016 Ref 8-A-5
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION
Clearing Limits
Cover Measures
Perimeter Protection
Traffic Area Stabilization
Sediment Retention
Surface Water Collection
Dewatering Control
Dust Control
Flow Control
Control Pollutants
Protect Existing and Proposed
BMPs/Facilities
Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage
Project
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
AFTER CONSTRUCTION
Stabilize exposed surfaces
Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities
Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure
operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore
operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary
Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space
preservation areas
Other _______________________
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description
Detention
Infiltration
Regional Facility
Shared Facility
On-site BMPs
Other
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
Vegetated Flowpath
Wetpool
Filtration
Oil Control
Spill Control
On-site BMPs
Other
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
________________
Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Drainage Easement
Covenant
Native Growth Protection Covenant
Tract
Other ____________________________
Cast in Place Vault
Retaining Wall
Rockery > 4′ High
Structural on Steep Slope
Other _______________________________
REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6
Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my
knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Signed/Date
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 11 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
FIGURE 3 – EXISTING SITE SOIL CONDITIONS
Arents, Alderwood material
Ragnar-Indianola
association
coterra
321 3rd Avenue South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.596.7115 coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
coterra
321 3rd Avenue South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
206.596.7115 coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 14 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION II – CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY
The proposed project is subject to a Full Drainage Review per the 2017 City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual and is therefore subject to all nine core requirements and
all six special requirements. These requirements are listed below along with a discussion
of their applicability to this project. See Appendix F for drainage review type flow chart.
Core Requirements:
Req. #1 Discharge at Natural Location:
Existing discharge locations will be maintained.
Req. #2 Offsite Analysis:
See Section III below.
Req. #3 Flow Control:
The project is required to meet the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard.
The proposed improvements exceed the threshold of 5,000 sf of new and replaced
impervious surface, therefore triggering the requirement of a flow control facility
and on-site flow control BMPs.
A detention tank is proposed to meet the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard
requirement. Onsite BMPs are also required as part of the project and are
discussed below in Core Requirement #9.
For further details see Section IV.
Req. #4 Conveyance System:
The new conveyance system has been designed to convey the 25-year peak flow
from the developed site conditions.
Req. #5 Erosion and Sediment Control:
Construction erosion and sediment control systems will be designed and provided
for review at civil construction permit submittal.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 15 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
Req. #6 Maintenance and Operations:
A Declaration of Covenant is required for this project and will be submitted for
review by City of Renton staff before recording. The proposed facilities will be
owned and maintained by Renton Housing Authority.
Req. #7 Financial Guarantees:
A financial guarantee will be necessary for this project. Bonding will be required
for the construction of improvements and will be obtained prior to construction.
Req. #8 Water Quality:
The proposed improvements located on the project site exceed 5,000 sf of new
and replaced Pollution-Generating Impervious Surface (PGIS), therefore
triggering the requirement of a water quality facility.
Based on the proposed site usage, multi-family housing, Enhanced Basic Water
Quality treatment is required per Core Requirement #8 of the 2017 City of Renton
Surface Water Design Manual for targeted PGIS.
Permeable pavement will be installed throughout the project site and for concrete
sidewalks in any frontage improvements on Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington
Ave NE. Porous asphalt, porous concrete sidewalks, and permeable parking lot
pavers, underlain with a 6” sand layer, will provide water quality treatment for all
proposed PGIS on the project.
For further details see Section IV.
Req. #9 On-Site BMPs:
The proposed improvements exceed the threshold of 5,000 sf of new and replaced
impervious surface, therefore triggering the requirements of Core Requirement #9
to implement on-site flow control facilities to the maximum extent feasible.
Following the City of Renton SWDM required list method for Individual Large
Lots implementing on-site BMPs to comply with Core Requirement #9, all listed
BMPs were determined to be infeasible for the proposed project site.
Despite infeasibility determinations for listed on-site BMP facilities, the proposed
project plans to implement perforated pipe connections on all roof drains from the
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 16 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
three proposed apartment buildings per the recommendation of the City of Renton
SWDM.
For further details see Section IV.
Special Requirements:
Req. #1 Area Specific Requirements:
Proposed project site is part of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project within
the City of Renton. Master Site Plan was reviewed and approved by City of
Renton. Additionally, Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project was reviewed by
NOAA for compliance with requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for
listing under the ESA. Project must maintain specific impervious coverage limits
for overall Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Project which were approved as part of
previous reviews and agreements. To meet these approved impervious coverage
thresholds, proposed Sunset Oaks Apartments project must implement permeable
pavement throughout project site and for sidewalks on any frontage
improvements.
Req. #2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation
This project is not adjacent to any floodplains or floodways. Therefore no
delineation is necessary.
Req. #3 Flood Protection Facilities:
This project is not adjacent to any applicable areas and will not affect any
applicable facility.
Req. #4 Source Controls:
This project is a multi-family project and will provide appropriate source controls.
Req. #5 Oil Control:
No oil control requirements are applicable to this project.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 17 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
Req. #6 Aquifer Protection Area
The proposed project is within Zone 2 of the APA. The contractor will be
required to obtain imported fill material from a Washington Department of
Transportation approved source. There are no open flow control or water quality
facilities which will introduce stormwater to groundwater given the project soil
conditions.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 18 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION III – OFFSITE ANALYSIS
Task 1 – Study Area Definition and Maps
Maps of the project site and surrounding area were obtained from the King County GIS
website. Topographical site information is from the topographical survey for the project.
Storm drainage system maps were compiled from City of Renton GIS maps and as-built
plans. Aerial images were obtained from Google Earth.
Task 2 – Resource Review
The City of Renton Public Works Department was contacted regarding the resources
listed in section 2.3.1.1 of the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The
following is a summary of the resource review:
• Adopted Basin Plans
o City of Renton Basin Name: John’s Creek Basin
• Basin Reconnaissance Summary Reports
o None completed to our knowledge.
• Floodplain/Floodway (FEMA) Maps
o The site is not within a floodplain or floodway per FEMA mapping.
• Other Offsite Analysis Reports
o Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility Final TIR
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map
o There are no Environmentally Sensitive areas mapped within the vicinity
of the site.
• USDA Soils Survey
o A geotech report has been completed and site soils are primarily medium
dense sand with silt that was underlain by impermeable glacial till soil.
• Wetlands Inventory Maps
o There are no Wetlands mapped within the vicinity of the site.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 19 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
Task 3 – Field Inspection
A full Level 1 downstream analysis will be performed for civil construction permit
submittal.
Based on review of City of Renton GIS Utility Mapping, due to recent construction of the
Sunset Terrace Regional Stormwater Facility and associated storm drainage lines
surrounding it, the downstream storm drainage system from the Sunset Oaks Apartments
site has not been updated in the GIS system. It is believed that storm drainage is
conveyed south and west from Glennwood Ave NE before connecting into the existing
system on NE Sunset Blvd, where larger diameter conveyance piping flows west towards
Lake Washington beyond ¼ mile downstream from the site.
No known open drainage complaints are associated with the downstream conveyance
system.
Task 4 – Drainage System Description and Problem Description
There are no known problems with the downstream system.
Task 5 – Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems
Based on the requirements for the design of the proposed drainage systems, no negative
impacts to the systems downstream of the project site are anticipated.
Existing Upslope Drainage Areas
There is no significant upslope unmitigated drainage areas flowing onto the proposed
project site.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 22 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION IV – FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY
ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
Flow Control
The project site is located in a Peak Flow Control Standard area per the 2017 City of
Renton Surface Water Design Manual. This standard requires that the developed site
discharge rates match the existing site conditions discharge rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-
year return periods. The proposed improvements will create more than 2,000 SF of new
plus replaced imperious surfaces, therefore the project is required to meet the flow
control standard and implement on-site flow control BMPs.
MGS Flood stormwater modeling program – utilizing a continuous hydrologic model –
was implemented to size a detention facility which matched the existing site discharge
rates for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year return events. At this preliminary stage of design, a
detention tank was sized in MGS Flood to meet the flow control requirement. As the
project stormwater design is refined, the type of detention structure on the project may be
revised.
Based on the MGS Flood analysis, an approximately 970 CF detention tank is required
for the proposed project. The MGS Flood calculations are included in Appendix B of this
report. The proposed detention tank was designed per the City of Renton SWDM
requirements including 0.5’ sediment storage (dead storage). Sizing details are shown on
the Utility Plan and the future civil construction permit submittal.
On-Site Flow Control BMPs
The proposed site is classified as a Large Lot BMP Site as the proposed site is over
22,000 SF. Implementation of On-Site Flow Control BMPs is therefore required per
Core Requirement #9.
On-site BMPs are evaluated for targeted surfaces, per the list from section 1.2.9.2.2 for
Large Lot BMP Projects in the 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual.
Analysis of feasibility of the on-site BMPs from the SWDM list follow in order per
SWDM feasibility determination instructions.
• Full Dispersion: Infeasible. Per on-site BMP infeasibility criteria in section C.2.1.1,
the total area of impervious surfaces plus non-native pervious surfaces on the project
site exceed 35% of the total site area.
• Full Infiltration: Infeasible. Per Minimum Design Requirements for Full Infiltration
in section C.2.2.2, existing soils must be “coarse sands or cobbles or medium sands.”
Soils collected in on-site borings per the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared
by Zipper Geo Associates, LLC, dated 5/15/2019, are classified dense to dense sand
with variable silt and gravel contents. Below this layer was encountered very dense
sand with variable silt and gravel contents that the geotechnical engineer interpreted
to be glacial till. These soils were found at a depth of typical on-site infiltration
facilities or infiltration BMPs.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 23 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
• Bioretention: Infeasible. Bioretention is considered infeasible for projects that cannot
meet the minimum design requirements for bioretention. Per section C2.6 of the City
of Renton SWDM, “ Many locations in the City have soils that are underlain by a
compacted layer of soil (i.e., glacial till or hardpan) which severely limits soaking
capacity and causes water to perch on the relatively impervious layer during the wet
season. This can make bioretention impracticable, unreliable, and reduce plant
survivability in the bioretention system.”
Per the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Zipper Geo Associates, LLC,
dated 5/15/2019, “Our explorations encountered glacial till at a depth of about 3 to 5
feet below existing site grade. For purposes of stormwater infiltration, glacial till (or
hardpan) is generally considered a hydraulically restrictive layer, or essentially
impermeable for purposes of stormwater infiltration. As such, it is our opinion that
sufficient permeable soils do not exist at the site and therefore stormwater infiltration
is not feasible, in our opinion.”
Based on the project geotechnical engineer guidance, bioretention is not feasible on
the project site.
• Permeable Pavement: Required Implementation Per Project Conditions. Per agreed
upon terms between Sunset Oaks Apartments project owner/agents (Renton Housing
Authority) and reviewing agencies (City of Renton, NOAA, NMFS) to maintain
compliance with existing conditions of approval for the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Project, Sunset Oaks Apartments project will implement permeable
pavements for all at-grade hard surfaces throughout project site and any proposed
sidewalks as part of required frontage improvements.
• Basic Dispersion:
o Splash blocks: Infeasible. Required 50’ vegetated flow path is infeasible
based on proposed site design.
o Rock pads: Infeasible. Required 50’ vegetated flow path is infeasible
based on proposed site design.
o Gravel-filled trenches: Infeasible. Per section C.2.4.4, setbacks of at least
10’ from buildings and 5’ from property line are required. Proposed site
layout cannot accommodate 25’ flowpath with required setbacks.
o Sheet flow: Infeasible. Required 10’ vegetated flow path located on the
project property is infeasible based on proposed site design.
• Soil Amendment: Feasible. New and replaced pervious surfaces within the project
limits will implement soil amendment per the soil quality and depth requirements of
section C2.13
In addition to utilization of permeable pavement throughout project site, perforated pipe
connections from roof drain leaders from each of the three proposed buildings, upstream
of detention, are proposed. These perforated pipe connections are shown on the current
Utility Plan.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 24 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
Water Quality
The proposed new and replaced pollution-generating impervious surfaces (PGIS) on the
project site trigger the requirement for water quality treatment of targeted surfaces. Per
the City of Renton SWDM, the project site is within the Basin Water Quality Area; but
the proposed site land use of multi-family housing triggers the Enhanced Basic Water
Quality Menu.
The proposed project will provide mitigation of on-site PGIS using permeable pavements
throughout the project site. All proposed PGIS is either porous asphalt, porous concrete
sidewalk, or permeable pavers. Any proposed sidewalk for frontage improvements on
Glennwood Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE is porous concrete sidewalk. All permeable
pavement surfaces follow City of Renton standard details and specifications.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 25 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION V – CONVEYANCE SYSTEM DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
The new conveyance system has been designed to convey at least the 25-year peak flow
rate from the developed site. Conveyance capacity calculations will be included with the
civil construction permit submittal.
SECTION VI – SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
A geotechnical analysis of the project site was performed and is included in Appendix D.
SECTION VII – OTHER PERMITS
In addition to the Site Plan Review, a Civil Construction Permit from the City of Renton
is required, as well as an NPDES permit from the Washington State DOE for the
discharge of construction stormwater from the project site.
SECTION VIII – EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
ESC Measures are being addressed as follows:
• Clearing Limits: Clearing limits are being delineated by perimeter silt fencing and
chain link fencing.
• Cover Measures: Temporary cover shall be installed if an area is to remain
unworked for more than seven days during the dry season (May 1 to September
30) or for more than two consecutive working days during the wet season
(October 1 to April 30). Any area to remain unworked for more than 30 days shall
be seeded or sodded, unless the City of Renton determines that winter weather
makes vegetation establishment infeasible.
• Perimeter Protection: Perimeter protection will be implemented by silt fencing
around the site perimeter where drainage paths require.
• Traffic Area Stabilization: A stabilized construction entrance will be built for
construction traffic.
• Sediment Retention: Catch basin protection will be provided on all drainage inlets
on, adjacent to, and downstream of the project site.
• Surface Water Control: Surface water will be collected and conveyed via swales
with check dams as necessary.
• Dust Control: Dust control, if required, will be provided through the limited use
of water trucks.
Sunset Oaks Apartments Page 26 Project No. 19003
Renton, WA Coterra Engineering PLLC
SECTION IX – BOND QUANTITIES AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
A bond quantity worksheet for the proposed improvements will be included with the civil
construction permit submittal.
There are two Declaration of Covenants which are required for the proposed project; one
for inspection and maintenance of proposed stormwater facilities; and one for the
inspection and maintenance of the proposed on-site BMPs. A draft version of these
Declaration of Covenants will be provided for review and approval by City of Renton
prior to recording. They will be signed and notarized prior to recording.
SECTION X – OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL
An operation and maintenance manual which outlines required regular maintenance
necessary for the proposed stormwater facilities will be provided with the civil
construction permit submittal. The maintenance of the stormwater facilities will by be
performed by Renton Housing Authority.
Appendix A
Civil Plans
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS
5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra
321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
ph 206.596.7115
coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS
5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra
321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406
Seattle, Washington 98104
ph 206.596.7115
coterraengineering.com
ENGINEERING PLLC
5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
NO.DATEREMARKISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:Sunset CrestTownhomesGlennwood Ave,Renton, WA.....................12.19.18MBPAPPUD SUBMITTALSHEET NO:SHEET TITLE:177 Western Avenue West Suite 266Seattle, WA 98119coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLCIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDS5705'6.#0'0'4'06109#5705'61#-5#2#46/'065coterra321 3rd Ave South, Suite 406Seattle, Washington 98104ph 206.596.7115coterraengineering.comENGINEERING PLLC5705'61#-5#2#46/'065
Appendix B
Flow Control/Detention Calculations
—————————————————————————————————
MGS FLOOD
PROJECT REPORT
Program Version: MGSFlood 4.38
Program License Number: 201510001
Project Simulation Performed on: 09/03/2019 9:15 AM
Report Generation Date: 09/03/2019 9:26 AM
—————————————————————————————————
Input File Name:XXXX-MGS Flood - revised areas.fld
Project Name:19003 - RHA Sunset Oaks
Analysis Title:Preliminary Detention Sizing
Comments:60" CMP - approx 50 lf
48" CMP - approx 90 lf
———————————————— PRECIPITATION INPUT ————————————————
Computational Time Step (Minutes): 15
Extended Precipitation Time Series Selected
Climatic Region Number:13
Full Period of Record Available used for Routing
Precipitation Station :96004005 Puget East 40 in_5min 10/01/1939-10/01/2097
Evaporation Station :961040 Puget East 40 in MAP
Evaporation Scale Factor : 0.750
HSPF Parameter Region Number:1
HSPF Parameter Region Name :USGS Default
********** Default HSPF Parameters Used (Not Modified by User) ***************
********************** WATERSHED DEFINITION ***********************
Predevelopment/Post Development Tributary Area Summary
Predeveloped Post Developed
Total Subbasin Area (acres)1.053 1.053
Area of Links that Include Precip/Evap (acres) 0.000 0.000
Total (acres)1.053 1.053
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : EX ----------
-------Area(Acres) --------
Till Forest 0.000
Till Pasture 0.000
Till Grass 0.803
Outwash Forest 0.000
Outwash Pasture 0.000
Outwash Grass 0.000
Wetland 0.000
Green Roof 0.000
User 2 0.000
Impervious 0.250
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 1.053
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
---------- Subbasin : PR ----------
-------Area(Acres) --------
Till Forest 0.000
Till Pasture 0.000
Till Grass 0.240
Outwash Forest 0.000
Outwash Pasture 0.000
Outwash Grass 0.000
Wetland 0.000
Green Roof 0.000
User 2 0.000
Impervious 0.813
----------------------------------------------
Subbasin Total 1.053
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 0
************************* LINK DATA *******************************
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
------------------------------------------
Link Name: Prelim Det 60 in-50 lf
Link Type: Structure
Downstream Link: None
User Specified Elevation Volume Table Used
Elevation (ft) Pond Volume (cu-ft)
99.00 0.
99.20 26.
99.40 74.
99.60 134.
99.80 203.
100.00 280.
100.20 362.
100.40 450.
100.60 542.
100.80 637.
101.00 734.
101.20 832.
101.40 932.
101.60 1032.
101.80 1132.
102.00 1230.
102.20 1327.
102.40 1422.
102.60 1514.
102.80 1601.
103.00 1684.
103.20 1761.
103.40 1830.
103.60 1890.
103.80 1937.
104.00 1964.
104.20 1965.
104.40 1966.
104.60 1967.
104.80 1968.
105.00 1969.
Massmann Infiltration Option Used
Hydraulic Conductivity (in/hr) : 0.00
Depth to Water Table (ft): 100.00
Bio-Fouling Potential : Low
Maintenance : Average or Better
Riser Geometry
Riser Structure Type : Circular
Riser Diameter (in): 24.00
Common Length (ft): 0.280
Riser Crest Elevation : 104.00 ft
Hydraulic Structure Geometry
Number of Devices: 3
---Device Number 1 ---
Device Type : Circular Orifice
Control Elevation (ft) : 100.50
Diameter (in): 2.21
Orientation : Horizontal
Elbow : No
---Device Number 2 ---
Device Type : Circular Orifice
Control Elevation (ft) : 102.50
Diameter (in): 2.90
Orientation : Horizontal
Elbow : Yes
--- Device Number 3 ---
Device Type : Rectangular Weir that Intersects the Riser Top
Invert Elevation (ft): 103.50
Length (ft): 0.280
**********************FLOOD FREQUENCY AND DURATION STATISTICS*******************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 0
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Subbasins: 1
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: Prelim Det 60 in-50 lf ********** Link WSEL Stats
WSEL Frequency Data(ft)
(Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position)
Tr (yrs) WSEL Peak (ft)
======================================
1.05-Year 101.341
1.11-Year 101.496
1.25-Year 101.589
2.00-Year 102.049
3.33-Year 102.443
5-Year 102.563
10-Year 102.755
25-Year 103.199
50-Year 103.335
100-Year 103.834
***********Groundwater Recharge Summary *************
Recharge is computed as input to Perlnd Groundwater Plus Infiltration in Structures
Total Predeveloped Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: EX 98.135
_____________________________________
Total:98.135
Total Post Developed Recharge During Simulation
Model Element Recharge Amount (ac-ft)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subbasin: PR 29.331
Link: Prelim Det 60 in-50 0.000
_____________________________________
Total: 29.331
Total Predevelopment Recharge is Greater than Post Developed
Average Recharge Per Year, (Number of Years= 158)
Predeveloped: 0.621 ac-ft/year, Post Developed: 0.186 ac-ft/year
***********Water Quality Facility Data *************
----------------------SCENARIO: PREDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 0
----------------------SCENARIO: POSTDEVELOPED
Number of Links: 1
********** Link: Prelim Det 60 in-50 lf **********
Basic Wet Pond Volume (91% Exceedance): 3843. cu-ft
Computed Large Wet Pond Volume, 1.5*Basic Volume: 5765. cu-ft
Infiltration/Filtration Statistics--------------------
Inflow Volume (ac-ft): 412.77
Inflow Volume Including PPT-Evap (ac-ft): 412.77
Total Runoff Infiltrated (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Total Runoff Filtered (ac-ft): 0.00, 0.00%
Primary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 414.39
Secondary Outflow To Downstream System (ac-ft): 0.00
Percent Treated (Infiltrated+Filtered)/Total Volume: 0.00%
***********Compliance Point Results *************
Scenario Predeveloped Compliance Subbasin: EX
Scenario Postdeveloped Compliance Link: Prelim Det 60 in-50 lf
*** Point of Compliance Flow Frequency Data ***
Recurrence Interval Computed Using Gringorten Plotting Position
Predevelopment Runoff Postdevelopment Runoff
Tr (Years)Discharge (cfs)Tr (Years)Discharge (cfs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Year 0.166 2-Year 0.162
5-Year 0.234 5-Year 0.241
10-Year 0.320 10-Year 0.303
25-Year 0.442 25-Year 0.392
50-Year 0.573 50-Year 0.414
100-Year 0.659 100-Year 0.633
200-Year 0.702 200-Year 0.654
** Record too Short to Compute Peak Discharge for These Recurrence Intervals
Detention Pipe Volume Calculator
Blue Indicates Data Entry Cells, the rest are calculated.
Storage Volume Provided by Horizontal Pipe of Diameter d
Pipe Diameter (d)5.0 ft
Pipe Length 100 ft
Overflow Elevation:104.00 ft
Pond Volume at Overflow (cu ft):1937
Target Volume from MGSFlood:700
Note: Volume is increased by 1 for Elevations Greater than Pipe Diameter
Pond Volume Table Because Routing Routine Requires Increasing Pond Volume
Circular Section Geometry Read from CircularSections Tab *** Copy Table below to MGSFlood Program Elevation Volume Input Screen
elev.Wetted Area storage storage DON'T INCLUDE THE COLUMN HEADINGS!
ft y/d s.f.cu.ft.(ac.ft)ELEV (FT)Top Area (Dummy) VOLUME (CU FT)
99.00 0.000 0.000 0 0 99.00 10.0 0.0.
99.20 0.040 0.263 26 0.001 99.20 10.1 26.3.
99.40 0.080 0.735 74 0.002 99.40 10.2 73.5.
99.60 0.120 1.335 134 0.003 99.60 10.3 133.5.
99.80 0.160 2.028 203 0.005 99.80 10.4 202.8.
100.00 0.200 2.795 280 0.006 100.00 10.5 279.5.
100.20 0.240 3.623 362 0.008 100.20 10.6 362.3.
100.40 0.280 4.500 450 0.010 100.40 10.7 450.0.
100.60 0.320 5.418 542 0.012 100.60 10.8 541.8.
100.80 0.360 6.365 637 0.015 100.80 10.9 636.5.
101.00 0.400 7.335 734 0.017 101.00 11.0 733.5.
101.20 0.440 8.320 832 0.019 101.20 11.1 832.0.
101.40 0.480 9.318 932 0.021 101.40 11.2 931.8.
101.60 0.520 10.318 1032 0.024 101.60 11.3 1031.8.
101.80 0.560 11.315 1132 0.026 101.80 11.4 1131.5.
102.00 0.600 12.300 1230 0.028 102.00 11.5 1230.0.
102.20 0.640 13.270 1327 0.030 102.20 11.6 1327.0.
102.40 0.680 14.218 1422 0.033 102.40 11.7 1421.8.
102.60 0.720 15.135 1514 0.035 102.60 11.8 1513.5.
102.80 0.760 16.010 1601 0.037 102.80 11.9 1601.0.
103.00 0.800 16.840 1684 0.039 103.00 12.0 1684.0.
103.20 0.840 17.608 1761 0.040 103.20 12.1 1760.8.
103.40 0.880 18.300 1830 0.042 103.40 12.2 1830.0.
103.60 0.920 18.900 1890 0.043 103.60 12.3 1890.0.
103.80 0.960 19.373 1937 0.044 103.80 12.4 1937.3.
104.00 1.000 19.635 1964 0.045 104.00 12.5 1963.5.
104.20 1.040 19.635 1964 0.045 104.20 12.6 1964.5.
104.40 1.080 19.635 1964 0.045 104.40 12.7 1965.5.
104.60 1.120 19.635 1964 0.045 104.60 12.8 1966.5.
104.80 1.160 19.635 1964 0.045 104.80 12.9 1967.5.
105.00 1.200 19.635 1964 0.045 105.00 13.0 1968.5.
9/3/2019 PondPipe.xls
Appendix C
Water Quality Calculation
Appendix D
Geotechnical Report
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
HARRINGTON AVE APARTMENTS
NE 10TH STREET AND HARRINGTON AVENUE NE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO. 2072.01
May 15, 2019May 15, 2019
Prepared for:
Renton Housing Authority
Prepared by:
19019 36th Avenue W., Suite E
Lynnwood, WA 98036
19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 582-9928
Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Renton Housing Authority
P.O. Box 2316
Renton, Washington 98056-0316
Attn: Mr. Mark Gropper
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Harrington Ave Apartments
NE 10th Street and Harrington Avenue NE
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Gropper,
In accordance with your request and written authorization, Zipper Geo Associates, LLC (ZGA) has
completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Harrington Ave
Apartments project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration, as well as our
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the project. Our services were completed in general
accordance with our Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services (Proposal No. P18283) dated August
23, 2018. Written authorization to proceed on our proposed scope of services was provided by Renton
Housing Authority on August 27, 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this
project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact
us.
Sincerely,
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Robert A. Ross, P.E.
Principal
5/15/19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING..................................................................................................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Surface Conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2
LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................................ 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 3
General Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 3
Geologically Hazardous Areas ......................................................................................................................... 3
Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 4
Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Structural Fill Materials, Placement, and Compaction .................................................................................... 7
Utility Trenching and Backfilling ...................................................................................................................... 8
Construction Dewatering ................................................................................................................................ 9
Shallow Foundation Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 9
On-Grade Concrete Slabs .............................................................................................................................. 10
Permanent Drainage Considerations ............................................................................................................ 11
Retaining Wall ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility ................................................................................................................ 12
Pavements ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results
Cover Page Photo Credit: Google Earth Pro, 2018 Aerial Photo
Page 1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
HARRINGTON AVE APARTMENTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the surface and subsurface conditions encountered at the project site and our
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the current proposed Harrington Ave Apartments in
Renton, Washington. Our geotechnical engineering scope of services for the project included subsurface
explorations, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.
The observations and conclusions summarized herein are based in part upon conditions observed in our
subsurface explorations and site observations. In the event that site conditions change, it may be
necessary to modify the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. This report is an
instrument of service and has been prepared in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Renton Housing
Authority, and its agents, for specific application to the subject property and stated purpose.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project site consists of five undeveloped parcels zoned as R-14 and located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of NE 10th Street and Harrington Ave NE in Renton, Washington. The project site was
previously developed with single-family homes that were demolished. We understand the project will
consists of developing the site with a 62 unit, 3-story, wood-framed apartment building and related site
improvements including underground utilities, pavements, and stormwater management facilities. We
expect that the finished floor elevation of the building will be near existing site grades. Grading for the
project is expected to consist of cuts and fills with a maximum anticipated depth/thickness of about 5 feet.
However, deeper cuts may be required for underground utilities and stormwater management facilities.
Design drawings for the proposed apartment building and associated site improvements were not available
at the time this report was prepared. Once details regarding the proposed apartment building and
additional site improvements are known, we should be consulted to review the details and revise this report
if necessary.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The project site consists of five parcels with a total area of slightly above one acre. The site is bordered to
the north by single-family residences, to the east by Harrington Ave NE, to the south by the new extension
of NE 10th Street, and to the west by Glennwood Ave NE. Parcel number 7227801305 overlaps with the new
construction of the NE 10th Street extension with a portion remaining to the north of the road construction.
We anticipate that this portion will be included in the project area.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 2
Topographically, the site is relatively flat. Ground cover consists primarily of grass with a few scattered large
deciduous and coniferous trees. The northwest corner of the project site was used as a staging area for
construction equipment associated with the extension of NE 10th Street and is covered with medium gravel.
A plan view of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Subsurface Conditions
Mapped Geology: We reviewed published geologic mapping of the site vicinity through the Washington
State Department of Natural Resource’s web-based mapping application Washington Geologic
Information Portal (https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/). The published mapping indicates the site is
underlain by Vashon glacial till (Qgt). The mapping describes this soil as mostly thin ablation till over
lodgment till, deposited by the Puget glacial lobe consisting of a generally compact, coherent unsorted
mixture of sand, silt clay and gravel. The mapping notes that north of the Cedar River, where the project
site is located, the till is mostly sand.
Subsurface Exploration: The subsurface evaluation for this project included advancement of five borings
(B-1 through B-5) completed throughout the area of the project site. The borings were extended to depths
of about 16 to 26½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and their approximate locations are shown
on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptive
logs of the subsurface explorations and the procedures utilized in the subsurface exploration program are
presented in Appendix A. A generalized description of soil conditions encountered in the explorations is
presented below. Please refer to the exploration logs in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the
conditions encountered at each exploration location.
Soil conditions observed in the borings generally consisted of three to twelve feet of medium dense to dense
sand with variable silt and gravel contents. Below this layer we encountered very dense sand with variable
silt and gravel contents that we interpret to be glacial till. All the explorations terminated within the glacial
till. The upper 4 to 5 feet of soils observed in our explorations was interpreted to be possibly undocumented
fill associated with previous development of the site and possibly demolition of the previously existing homes.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered within our explorations. Fluctuations in groundwater levels will likely
occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time
the exploration was performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in
the life of the structure may be higher than indicated on the logs. The possibility of groundwater level
fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 3
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing included soil moisture content, grain size distribution, and modified proctor tests on
selected samples obtained from our explorations. The results of the moisture content tests are presented on
the boring logs in Appendix A and the grain size distribution and modified proctor test results are presented
in Appendix B. In general, moisture content testing indicates the sands within the upper 10 feet of existing
site grade had moisture contents ranging from about 4 to 12 percent with an average of about 9 percent.
Grain size distribution testing indicates the sands within the upper 7 feet of existing site grade had fines
contents ranging from about 19 to 30 percent. We collected cuttings from the auger and performed a
modified proctor test on the material. The modified proctor test yielded a maximum dry density of 136.2 pcf
and an optimum moisture content of 8.3 percent.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Considerations
Based on the results of our subsurface investigation as described in previous sections, it is our opinion the
proposed building can be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on medium dense to
very dense native soil or structural fill placed on properly prepared native soils, contingent on proper
design and construction practices and implementation of the recommendations presented in this report.
Geotechnical engineering recommendations for conventional shallow foundations and other earthwork
related phases of the project are presented below. The recommendations contained in this report are
based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B),
engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. ASTM and Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specification codes cited herein respectively refer to the
current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the 2016 edition of the
Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10).
Geologically Hazardous Areas
As part of our services, we evaluated the presence of regulated geologically hazardous areas (GHAs) at
the site. Chapter 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (the Code) designates GHAs as Erosion, Landslide,
Seismic, and Coal Mine Hazard Areas.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas: The code defines steep slope hazard areas as areas with an average slope of
25 percent or greater with a total relief of 15 feet or greater, or having an average slope of 40 percent or
greater. The project site does not meet the definition of a steep slope area.
Landslide Hazard Areas: The code defines a low landslide hazard area as an area with slopes less than
fifteen percent. Based on the relative flat topography, the site classifies as having a “low landslide
hazard”, based on the code definition.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 4
Erosion Hazard Areas: The code characterizes sites as having a low or high erosion hazard based on
information available through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS maps the site
as being 70% Arents, Alderwood material (AmC) and 30% Ragnar-Indianola association both with a slope
less than 15 percent. Therefore, the site classifies as having a “low erosion hazard”, based on the code
definition.
Seismic Hazard Areas: The code characterizes sites as having either “low seismic hazard” or “high seismic
hazard” based on the subsurface conditions. A low seismic hazard area is defined as an area underlain by
dense soils or bedrock, generally having site classifications of A through D, as defined in the International
Building Code, 2012. It is our opinion that the project site classifies as having a “low seismic hazard”,
based on the code definition. More detailed information regarding seismic hazards is provided in the
seismic design considerations section of this report.
Coal Mine Hazard Areas: The code defines areas with low coal mine hazards as areas with no known mine
workings and no predicted subsidence. We reviewed the King County iMap for coal mine hazard mapping
as well as the Coal Mine Map Database located within the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources online Washington Geologic Information Portal. Based on a review of the readily available
information provided by these sources, no coal mine workings are documented within close vicinity of the
project site. Therefore, in our opinion the project site classifies as having a “low coal mine hazard”,
based on the code definition.
Seismic Design Considerations
The tectonic setting of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone formed by the
Juan de Fuca plate subducting beneath the North American Plate. This setting leads to intraplate, crustal,
and interplate earthquake sources. Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to
property resulting from these three principle earthquake sources.
Ground Surface Rupture: Based on our review of the USGS Quaternary age fault database for Washington
State, an inferred fault trace of the Seattle Fault Zone is located approximately 1 ½-miles to the north and
northwest of the project site. As the fault does not appear to cross the site, it is our opinion that the risk
of ground surface rupture at the site is low.
Landsliding: Based on the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding vicinity, it is our opinion
that the risk of earthquake-induced landsliding is low.
Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein cohesionless soils below the groundwater table
build up excess pore water pressures during earthquake loading. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose,
cohesionless soils, but may occur in denser soils if the ground shaking is sufficiently strong. The potential
hazardous impacts of liquefaction include liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading. Soil
conditions observed in our explorations consisted of dense to very dense sands with variable silt/gravel
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 5
contents. We did not encounter groundwater within our explorations. Based on the subsurface
conditions we encountered on the site, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is low.
IBC Seismic Design Parameters: Based on site location and soil conditions, the values provided below are
recommended for seismic design. The values provided below are based on the 2015 IBC as the building
code reference document.
Site Preparation
Erosion Control Measures: Stripped surfaces and soil stockpiles are typically a source of runoff sediments.
We recommend that silt fences, berms, and/or swales be installed around the downslope side of stripped
areas and stockpiles in order to capture runoff water and sediment. If earthwork occurs during wet
weather, we recommend that all stripped surfaces be covered with straw to reduce runoff erosion,
whereas soil stockpiles should be protected with anchored plastic sheeting.
Temporary Drainage: Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a
manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. The
site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into and/or
over excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth-drum rolled at the end of each
day to facilitate drainage if inclement weather is forecasted. Accumulated water must be removed from
subgrades and work areas immediately and prior to performing further work in the area. Equipment
access may be limited and the amount of soil rendered unfit for use as structural fill may be greatly
increased if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely manner.
Description Value
2015 IBC Site Classification 1 C
Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.430 g (Site Class B)
S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.537 g (site Class B)
SMS Maximum considered spectral response
acceleration for a Short Period 1.430 g (Site Class C)
SM1 Maximum considered spectral response
acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.699 g (Site Class C)
SDS Five-percent damped design spectral response
acceleration for a Short Period 0.953 g (Site Class C)
SD1 Five-percent damped design spectral response
acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.466 g (Site Class C)
1. In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based on
the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. The borings completed for this
study extended to a maximum depth of 26½ feet below grade. ZGA therefore determined the Site Class
assuming that similar density soils extend to 100 feet as suggested by published geologic maps for the
project area.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 6
Clearing and Stripping: Once TESC measures are installed, we expect site preparation to continue with
clearing and grubbing brush and trees, and stripping of organic rich topsoil. We recommend all tree
stumps and roots larger than ½ inch in diameter be cleared and grubbed from the areas planned for
improvement. Based on our explorations, stripping depths to remove topsoil is estimated to be about 6
inches. Stripping depths may be greater near trees and brush to fully remove root systems. All clearing
and stripping debris should be wasted off site or, if approved, used for topsoil in landscape areas.
Subgrade Preparation: Once site preparation is complete, all areas that are at design subgrade elevation
or areas that will receive new structural fill should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content within
plus or minus two percent of optimum moisture content for compaction. The subgrade should then be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
The existing near-surface site soils consist of loose to dense silty sand or sand with silt at or generally
somewhat above optimum moisture content for compaction. During wet weather, achieving a moisture
content adequate for compaction will be impossible. Therefore, we recommend subgrade preparation
and earthwork, in general, be completed during drier periods of the year when the soil moisture content
can be controlled by aeration and drying. If earthwork or construction activities take place during
extended periods of wet weather, or if the in situ moisture conditions are elevated above the optimum
moisture content, the soils will become unstable and not compactable. In the event the exposed subgrade
becomes unstable, yielding, or unable to be compacted due to high moisture conditions, we recommend
that the materials be removed to a sufficient depth in order to develop stable subgrade soils that can be
compacted to the minimum recommended levels. The severity of construction problems will be
dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade soils.
Once compacted, subgrades should be evaluated through density testing and proof rolling with a loaded
dump truck or heavy rubber-tired construction equipment weighing at least 20 tons to assess the
subgrade adequacy and to detect soft and/or yielding soils. In the event that compaction fails to meet
the specified criteria, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified and moisture conditioned as
necessary to obtain at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density (per ASTM D1557). Those soils
which are soft, yielding, or unable to be compacted to the specified criteria should be over-excavated and
replaced with suitable material as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. As an
alternate to subgrade compaction during wet site conditions or wet weather, the upper 12 inches of
subgrade should be overexcavated to a firm, non-yielding and undisturbed condition and backfilled with
compacted imported structural fill consisting of free-draining Gravel Borrow or crushed rock.
Freezing Conditions: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, exposed subgrades should be
allowed to thaw and then be compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Alternatively,
the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to expose unfrozen soil prior to placing
subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen soil should not be reused as structural fill
until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper moisture content, which may not be possible during
winter months.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 7
Structural Fill Materials, Placement, and Compaction
Structural fill includes any material placed below or adjacent to foundations, below concrete slabs, within
utility trenches, or other areas to support settlement-sensitive site improvements. Prior to the placement
of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended in the Site
Preparation section of this report.
Laboratory Testing: Representative samples of on-site and imported soils to be used as structural fill
should be submitted for laboratory testing at least 4 days in advance of its intended use in order to
complete the necessary Proctor tests.
Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill: We expect that the finished grade will stay very close to the existing
grade and therefore no substantial fill placement will be required. However, we expect the reuse of site
soils as structural fill will be desirable for underground utilities.
The suitability for reuse of site soils as structural fill depends on the composition and moisture content of
the soil. Soils encountered in excavations at the site are expected to consist of silty sand or sand with silt.
As the amount of fines increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture
content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to the
appropriate levels when the moisture content is more than approximately 2 percent above or below the
optimum moisture content (per ASTM D1557). Optimum moisture content is the moisture content which
results in the greatest compacted dry density with a specified compactive effort.
Laboratory testing of select soil samples indicates the in-place moisture content of site soils ranges from
about 4 to 12 percent. Based on the results of the modified proctor test, the optimum moisture content
of site soils is 8.3 percent. Therefore, site soils appear near the optimum moisture content for
compaction. Site soils should be suitable for structural fill during periods of dry weather with some slight
moisture conditioning. However, during wet weather, site soils will quickly become too wet for reuse as
structural fill. Therefore, we recommend earth work for the project be scheduled for the drier summer
months.
Imported Structural Fill: The appropriate type of imported structural fill will depend on weather
conditions. During extended periods of dry weather, we recommend imported fill, at a minimum, meet
the requirements of Common Borrow as specified in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2016 Washington State
Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
(WSDOT Standard Specifications). During wet weather and/or wet site conditions, higher-quality
structural fill might be required, as Common Borrow may contain sufficient fines to be moisture-sensitive.
During wet conditions, we recommend that imported structural fill consist of a “clean”, free-draining pit-
run sand and gravel. Such material should generally contain less than 5 percent fines, based on that soil
fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve, and not contain discrete particles greater than 3 inches in maximum
dimension. Alternatively, Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Gravel Borrow conforming to Sections 9-
03.9(3) and 9-03.14(1), respectively, of the WSDOT Standard Specifications could be used during wet
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 8
weather. It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is, in many cases, is weather-dependent.
Delays due to inclement weather are common, even when using select granular fill. We recommend that
site grading and earthwork be scheduled for the drier months, if possible.
Fill Placement and Compaction: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of a thickness adequate
for adequate compaction throughout the entire lift thickness with the compaction equipment used.
Typically, the maximum loose lift thickness that can be adequately compacted with typical compaction
equipment is 12 inches. However, in cases where large vibratory rollers and imported fill with less than
5% fines are used, the lift thickness can be increased. Increasing the loose lift thickness beyond 12 inches
should be based on field performance testing during construction prior to placement of production fills.
Thinner lifts may be necessary, depending on the size and weight of the compaction equipment. Each lift
of fill should be compacted to the minimum levels recommended in the table below based on the
maximum laboratory dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Test.
Structural fill placed in municipal rights-of-way should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
jurisdiction codes and standards. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present during grading
so that an adequate number of density tests may be conducted as structural fill placement occurs. In this
way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds.
Recommended Soil Compaction Levels
Location Minimum Percent Compaction*
Stripped native subgrade soils, prior to fill placement (upper 12 inches) 95
All fill below building floor slabs and foundations 95
Upper two feet of fill below pavement finished grade 95
Pavement fill below two feet from finished grade 92
Utility trench backfill greater than two feet from finished grade 92
Upper two feet of trench backfill from finished grade 95
Landscape Areas 90
* ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density
Utility Trenching and Backfilling
We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such
as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. Trench excavation safety guidelines are presented in WAC
Chapter 296-155 and WISHA RCW Chapter 49.17.
Utility Subgrade Preparation: We recommend that all utility subgrades be firm and unyielding and free of
soils that are loose, disturbed, or pumping. Soils that pump or yield should be removed and replaced. All
structural fill used to replace over-excavated soils should be compacted as recommended in the Structural
Fill section of this report.
Bedding and Initial Backfill: We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed
below and at least 12 inches above all utilities or in general accordance with the utility manufacturer’s
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 9
recommendations and local ordinances. We recommend the bedding consist of granular material free
from particles greater than 3 inches. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around
the haunches of the pipe, or material such as pea gravel should be used below the spring line of the pipes
to eliminate the need for mechanical compaction in this portion of the trenches. If water is encountered
in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement.
Trench Backfill: Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial
lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from
damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly
above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern.
Construction Dewatering
Groundwater was not encountered in our explorations. If groundwater is encountered during
construction, some form of temporary dewatering may be required. Conventional dewatering methods,
such as pumping from sump pits, should likely be adequate for temporary removal of groundwater
encountered during shallow excavation at the site. Construction dewatering systems should be designed,
maintained, and permitted by the contractor.
Shallow Foundation Recommendations
We recommend the building foundations be supported on the medium dense to very dense soils
encountered in our explorations at a depth of 2.5 to 4 feet below existing site grades. Based on the results
of our explorations, some loose, undocumented fill may be encountered at footing subgrade elevations.
As such, some over-excavation and replacement of loose, undocumented fill with structural fill may be
required. The need for over-excavation and replacement of loose, undocumented fill should be evaluated
by a representative from Zipper Geo Associates during construction. Where over-excavation is required,
the width of the over-excavation beyond footing edges should be equal to the required over-excavation
depth. For example, if the footing width is 12 inches and an over-excavation depth of two feet is required,
the total width of the over-excavation should be five feet. As an alternative, the width of over-excavations
can be limited to the footing width provided the over-excavation is backfilled with controlled density fill
or lean mix concrete having a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 100 psi. Over-excavation and
replacement with structural fill shall be in accordance with the recommendations provided in the
Structural Fill Materials, Placement and Compaction section of this report. Recommendations for shallow
spread footings are provided below.
Subgrade Preparation: Where loose, undocumented fill is not encountered at footing subgrade elevation,
we recommend that the subgrade exposed at the bottom of foundation excavations be compacted to a
firm and non-yielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. If the exposed subgrade cannot be compacted to the
required density, we recommend that it be removed to an adequate depth as recommended by a
representative from ZGA and replaced with compacted structural fill placed in accordance with this report.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 10
Allowable Bearing Pressure: Continuous and isolated column footings bearing on subgrades prepared as
recommended above may be designed for a maximum allowable, net, bearing pressure of 3,000 psf if
supported as recommended in this report. A one-third increase of the bearing pressure may be used for
short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic forces.
Shallow Foundation Depth and Width: For frost protection, the bottom of all exterior footings should bear
at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade, whereas the bottoms of interior footings
should bear at least 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. We recommend that all
continuous wall and isolated column footings be at least 12 and 24 inches wide, respectively.
Lateral Resistance: Resistance to lateral loads can be calculated assuming a ultimate passive resistance of
405 pcf equivalent fluid pressure (triangular distribution) for footings backfilled with structural fill as
recommended in this report. We recommend an ultimate base friction coefficient of 0.50. If allowable
stress design is used, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5 be used for lateral resistance
calculations. We recommend that passive resistance be neglected in the upper 18 inches of embedment.
Estimated Settlement: Assuming the foundation subgrade soils and structural fill compaction are
completed in accordance with recommendations presented herein, we estimate that total static footing
settlements will be 1 inch or less. We estimate that differential footing settlement will be ½ inch or less
in 40 feet.
Subsurface Drainage: Although no groundwater was encountered in our explorations, as a precautionary
measure, we recommend a perimeter footing drain be installed around the building to collect surface
water infiltration if impermeable hard surfacing, such as asphalt pavement, is not extended to the
foundation walls of the building. The perimeter footing drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter
perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides
of the pipe. The gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N) to reduce the
migration of fines from the surrounding soil. The invert of the footing drain should be placed no higher
than the bottom of the footing. The perforations should be placed down. The perimeter foundation drain
with cleanouts should not be connected to roof downspout drains and should be constructed to discharge
into the site storm water system or other appropriate outlet.
On-Grade Concrete Slabs
Subgrade Preparation: Subgrades for on-grade slabs should be prepared in accordance with the Site
Preparation and Structural Fill sections of this report.
Slab Base: To provide a uniform slab bearing surface, capillary break, and even working surface, we
recommend that on-grade slabs be underlain by a 6-inch thick layer of clean, compacted crushed rock
meeting the requirements of Crushed Surfacing Top Course as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT
Standard Specifications with the modification that a maximum of 7.5 percent of the material passes the
U.S. No 200 sieve.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 11
Vapor Barrier: From a geotechnical perspective, a vapor barrier is not considered necessary beneath the
slab on grade floor unless moisture sensitive floor coverings and/or adhesives are used. If a vapor barrier
is used, we recommend using a 10-mil (minimum), puncture-resistant proprietary product such as Stego
Wrap, or an approved equivalent that is classified as a Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E
1745. Overlap lengths and the appropriate tape used to seal the laps should be in accordance the vapor
retarder manufacturer’s recommendations. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the
slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions
regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier.
Permanent Drainage Considerations
Surface Drainage: Final site grades should be sloped to carry surface water away from buildings and other
drainage-sensitive areas. Additionally, site grades should be designed such that concentrated runoff on
softscape surfaces is avoided. Any surface runoff directed towards softscaped slopes should be collected
at the top of the slope and routed to the bottom of the slope and discharged in a manner that prevents
erosion.
Retaining Wall
Lateral Earth Pressures: The lateral soil pressures acting on backfilled retaining walls will depend on the
nature and density of the soil behind the wall, and the ability of the wall to yield in response to the earth
loads. Yielding walls (i.e. walls that are free to translate or rotate) that are able to displace laterally at
least 0.001H, where H is the height of the wall, may be designed for active earth pressures. Non-yielding
walls (i.e. walls that are not free to translate or rotate) should be designed for at-rest earth pressures.
Non-yielding walls include walls that are braced to another wall or structure, and wall corners.
Assuming that walls are backfilled and drained as described in the following paragraphs, we recommend
that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf
(active earth pressure). Non-yielding walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf
(at-rest earth pressure).
Surcharge pressures due to sloping backfill, adjacent footings, vehicles, construction equipment, etc. must
be added to these lateral earth pressure values. For traffic loads, we recommend using an equivalent
two-foot soil surcharge of about 250 psf.
For yielding and non-yielding walls with level backfill conditions, we recommend that a uniformly
distributed seismic pressure of 7H psf for the active case and 12H psf for the at-rest case, where H is the
height of the wall, be applied to the walls.
The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of no buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall. If groundwater is allowed to saturate the backfill soils, hydrostatic pressures will act
against a retaining wall; however, if the recommended drainage system is included with each retaining
wall, we do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 12
Adequate drainage measures must be installed to collect and direct subsurface water away from subgrade
walls. All backfilled walls should include a drainage aggregate zone extending a minimum of two feet from
the back of wall for the full height of the wall and wide enough at the base of the wall to allow seepage
to flow to the footing drain. The drainage aggregate should consist of material meeting the requirements
of WSDOT 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Walls. A minimum 4-inch diameter, perforated PVC drain pipe
should be provided at the base of backfilled walls to collect and direct subsurface water to an appropriate
discharge point. We recommend placing a non-woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent,
around the free draining backfill material.
Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility
With respect to stormwater infiltration, the City of Renton adopts the 2016 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM) with amendments. Based on our review of the 2016 KCSWDM, the applicant
must demonstrate, through the opinion of a geotechnical professional, that sufficient permeable soil
exists to allow construction of a properly functioning infiltration facility. Our explorations encountered
glacial till at a depth of about 3 to 5 feet below existing site grade. For purposes of stormwater infiltration,
glacial till (or hardpan) is generally considered a hydraulically restrictive layer, or essentially impermeable
for purposes of stormwater infiltration. As such, it is our opinion that sufficient permeable soils do not
exist at the site and therefore stormwater infiltration is not feasible, in our opinion.
Pavements
Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not maintenance-
free. The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of
performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be
required. A 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 12 years.
Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better ling-term performance, but would cost
more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator” cracking and other
failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and
low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. The recommendations
presented below are based on AASHTO Low-Volume Road Design methodologies as presented in the 1993
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
Traffic and Reliability: Our design assumes 100,000, 18-kip equivalent single axle loads over the life of the
pavement along the main access roads and a 75% reliability.
Soil Design Values: Pavement subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of the medium stiff silt deposit we
encountered in our explorations. Our analysis assumes a minimum California Bearing Ration (CBR) value
of 10 is appropriate for this material.
Recommended Pavement Sections: For light duty pavements (parking stalls), we recommend 2 inches of
asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base course. For heavy duty pavements (main access
roads, truck delivery routes, etc.), we recommend 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 13
rock base course. A thicker asphalt section or concrete pavements should be considered in front of
dumpster enclosures.
Materials and Construction: We recommend the following regarding asphalt pavement materials and
pavement construction.
• Subgrade Preparation: Upper 24 inches of pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report.
• Asphalt Concrete: We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG
58-22 or PG 64-22 Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the WSDOT Standard
Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the
aggregate gradation control points for ½-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA
Proportions of Materials.
• Base Course: We recommend that the crushed aggregate base course conform to Section
9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
• Compaction: All base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. We recommend that asphalt be compacted
to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density or 96 percent of Marshall
(Maximum laboratory) density.
We recommend that a Portland cement concrete pavement (CCP) be utilized in entrance and exit sections,
dumpster pads, loading dock areas, drive-thru areas or other areas where extensive wheel maneuvering
or repeated loading are expected. The dumpster pad should be large enough to support the wheels of
the truck which will bear the load of the dumpster. We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of CCP
underlain by 4 inches of crushed aggregate base. Although not required for structural support, the base
course layer is recommended to help reduce potentials for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade
“pumping” through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and
shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where
necessary for load transfer.
Portland cement concrete should be designed with proper air-entrainment and have a minimum
compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing. Adequate reinforcement and
number of longitudinal and transverse control joints should be placed in the rigid pavement in accordance
with ACI requirements. The joints should be sealed as soon as possible (in accordance with sealant
manufacturer’s instructions) to minimize water infiltration into the soil.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 14
CLOSURE
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations
completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations for the current phase of
the project were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information
to formulate our recommendations. Project plans were not available at the time this report was prepared.
We therefore recommend Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be provided an opportunity to review the final plans
and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design
considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project
design.
The performance of shallow foundations and slabs on grade depend greatly on proper site preparation
and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide
geotechnical engineering services during the site preparation and foundation construction phases of the
project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified geotechnical engineer
could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely
manner as the project construction progresses.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Renton Housing Authority, and its agents, for
specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,
excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that
changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Zipper
Geo Associates, LLC reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in
writing.
B-4GLENNWOOD AVE NE
HARRINGTON AVE NENE 10TH STB-1B-2B-3B-5FIGUREJob No.Zipper Geo Associates, LLC19019 36th Ave. W.,Suite ELynnwood, WASHT. of11SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN2072.01SEPTEMBER 20181HARRINTON APARTMENTSNE 10TH ST AND HARRINGTON AVE NERENTON, WASHINGTONAPPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET0808040LEGENDB-1BORING NUMBER ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEREFERENCE: GOOGLE MAPS 2018.
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
Field Exploration Description
Our field exploration for this project included advancing five borings across the proposed site of the
project on September 12, 2018. The approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Figure
1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined in the field based on hand
measurements from existing site features. As such, the exploration locations should be considered
accurate only to the degree implied by the measurement method. Descriptive logs of the borings are
enclosed in this appendix. A current topographic survey of the site was not available at the time of this
report. Therefore, ground surface elevations of the explorations were not determined.
The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company
(Holocene Drilling Inc.) working under subcontract to ZGA. The borings were advanced using the hollow-
stem auger drilling method. An engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the
subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored
in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Samples
were obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test at 2.5- to 5-foot intervals throughout the drilling
operation.
The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside
diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches.
The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total
number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or
“blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped
and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard
Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency
of cohesive soils.
The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in the borings,
based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our
log indicates the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred
the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and
approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings. If groundwater was encountered, the
approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, are depicted on the logs.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-1
Page 1 of 2
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-1
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 18
S-2 18
S-3 0
S-4 8
S-5 18
S-6 18
47
30
20
20
76
72
GSA
MC
MC
5 inches of organics
Dense, damp, light brown, Silty SAND, with gravel
(Possible fill)
Medium dense, moist, brown, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
No Recovery
Medium dense, moist, brown-gray, SAND, with silt, some
gravel, slight mottling (Weathered Glacial Till)
Grades to very dense
Very dense, moist, tan, SAND, some silt (Glacial till)
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
25
30
35
40
45
50
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-1
Page 2 of 2
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-1
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-7 18 65 GSA
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Glacial till)
Boring terminated at approximately 26 1/2 feet.
No groundwater observed during exploration.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-2
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-2
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 inches
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 12
S-2 12
S-3 16
S-4 18
S-5 11
49
60
63
73
50/5
MC
MC
MC
MC
6 inches of organics
Dense, damp, brown, Silty SAND, with gravel slight
mottling (Possible fill)
Dense, damp, gray, SAND, with silt and gravel (Weathered
Glacial Till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
(Glacial Till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel,
slight mottling (Glacial till)
Boring terminated at approximately 16 ft.
No groundwater observed during time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-3
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-3
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 0
S-2 6
S-3 18
S-4 9
S-5 11
S-6 10
50/2
23
74
50/3
50/5
50/4
GSA
MC
MC
4 inches of organics
Light brown, silty SAND, some gravel (Possible fill)
No recovery (Blow counts overstated)
Medium dense, moist, gray-tan, SAND, with silt, some
gravel (Weathered glacial till)
Very dense, moist, gray, silty SAND, some gravel (Glacial
till)
Grades to with silt and gravel
Grades to trace gravel
Grades to some silt and gravel
Boring terminated at approximately 21 ft. No groundwater
observed at the time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-4
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-4
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 inches
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 6
S-2 18
S-3 12
S-4 0
S-5 8
S-6 4
7
26
50/6
50/3
50/2
50/3
GSA
MC
MC
2 inches of organics
Loose, damp, orange-brown, Gravelly SAND, with silt,
trace organics (Possible fill)
Medium dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Weathered glacial till
Very dense, moist, gray-brown, SAND, with silt and gravel
(Glacial till)
No recovery (Blow counts overstated)
Grades to gray, some gravel
Grades to with gravel, some silt
Boring terminated at approximately 20 1/2 feet.
No groundwater observed at the time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-5
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-5
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 9
S-2 10
S-3 9
S-4 6
S-5 14
S-6 6
32
25
50/3
50/6
50/6
50/6
MC
MC
MC
MC
6 inches of organics
Dense, moist, tan, SAND, with silt, some gravel (Possible
fill)
Medium dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Weathered glacial till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
(Glacial till)
Grades to some gravel
Grades to some silt
Boring terminated at approximately 20 1/2 feet. No
groundwater observed at the time of drilling.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
A series of laboratory tests were performed by ZGA during the course of this study to evaluate the index
and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests
performed are given below.
Visual Classification
Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the
exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight
containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as
required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Visual soil
classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and
accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A.
Moisture Content Determinations
Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the
explorations to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in
general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM D 2216. Moisture contents are presented
on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
Grain Size Distributions
A grain size analysis determines the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample.
Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422.
The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and
are presented in this appendix.
Modified Proctor
A modified proctor test determines the maximum dry density and optimum moisture to obtain a
maximum density under a certain compaction effort. The modified proctor test was performed on
representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of the modified proctor test
are presented in Appendix B.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartment
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-1 2 1/2-4 9.3 Silty SAND, with
gravelS-1 30.5
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-1 25-26 1/2 8.3 SAND, with silt,
some gravelS-7 12.7
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-3 5-6 1/2 7.3 SAND, with silt,
some gravelS-2 27.6
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-4 2 1/2-4 9.1 Gravelly SAND,
with siltS-1 19.3
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content (%)
LABORATORY
COMPACTION
CURVE
Compaction Size
Test Standard Mold
Harrington Ave Apartments
Job No.
Job Name
Date Tested
Sample No.
Location
Test Results
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19023 36th Avenue West, Suite D Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 582-9928
Test No.Field Moist.2 3 4
Dry Density (lbs/cu.ft.)132.9 129.4 130.4 #DIV/0!
Moisture Content (%)9.3 10.1 6.5 #DIV/0!
1557-B 4-inch
2.80
2.70
2.60
2.50
2.40
Zero Air Voids Curves For
Various Specific Gravities
2072.01
Depth / Elevation9/14/2018
09122018
Cuttings 5-7 1/2 ft
134.0 136.2
8.38.3
Maximum Dry Density / Oversize Corrected (pcf)
Opt. Moisture Content / Oversize Corrected (%)
Sample Description:
Comments:
Oversize Fraction (%) / Sieve Used 3/49
Appendix E
Conveyance Calculations
Appendix F
Drainage Review Flow Chart
SECTION 1.1 DRAINAGE REVIEW
12/12/2016 2017 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual
1-14
FIGURE 1.1.2.A FLOW CHART FOR DETERMINING TYPE OF DRAINAGE REVIEW REQUIRED
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
HARRINGTON AVE APARTMENTS
NE 10TH STREET AND HARRINGTON AVENUE NE
RENTON, WASHINGTON
PROJECT NO. 2072.01
May 15, 2019May 15, 2019
Prepared for:
Renton Housing Authority
Prepared by:
19019 36th Avenue W., Suite E
Lynnwood, WA 98036
19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425) 582-9928
Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Renton Housing Authority
P.O. Box 2316
Renton, Washington 98056-0316
Attn: Mr. Mark Gropper
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report
Harrington Ave Apartments
NE 10th Street and Harrington Avenue NE
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Gropper,
In accordance with your request and written authorization, Zipper Geo Associates, LLC (ZGA) has
completed the subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the Harrington Ave
Apartments project. This report presents the results of the subsurface exploration, as well as our
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the project. Our services were completed in general
accordance with our Proposal for Geotechnical Engineering Services (Proposal No. P18283) dated August
23, 2018. Written authorization to proceed on our proposed scope of services was provided by Renton
Housing Authority on August 27, 2018. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this
project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact
us.
Sincerely,
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Robert A. Ross, P.E.
Principal
5/15/19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING..................................................................................................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Surface Conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Subsurface Conditions ..................................................................................................................................... 2
Groundwater Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 2
LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................................................ 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 3
General Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 3
Geologically Hazardous Areas ......................................................................................................................... 3
Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 4
Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Structural Fill Materials, Placement, and Compaction .................................................................................... 7
Utility Trenching and Backfilling ...................................................................................................................... 8
Construction Dewatering ................................................................................................................................ 9
Shallow Foundation Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 9
On-Grade Concrete Slabs .............................................................................................................................. 10
Permanent Drainage Considerations ............................................................................................................ 11
Retaining Wall ............................................................................................................................................... 11
Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility ................................................................................................................ 12
Pavements ..................................................................................................................................................... 12
CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................... 14
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs
Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results
Cover Page Photo Credit: Google Earth Pro, 2018 Aerial Photo
Page 1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
HARRINGTON AVE APARTMENTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the surface and subsurface conditions encountered at the project site and our
geotechnical engineering recommendations for the current proposed Harrington Ave Apartments in
Renton, Washington. Our geotechnical engineering scope of services for the project included subsurface
explorations, laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analysis, and preparation of this report.
The observations and conclusions summarized herein are based in part upon conditions observed in our
subsurface explorations and site observations. In the event that site conditions change, it may be
necessary to modify the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report. This report is an
instrument of service and has been prepared in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical
engineering practice. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Renton Housing
Authority, and its agents, for specific application to the subject property and stated purpose.
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project site consists of five undeveloped parcels zoned as R-14 and located at the northwest corner of
the intersection of NE 10th Street and Harrington Ave NE in Renton, Washington. The project site was
previously developed with single-family homes that were demolished. We understand the project will
consists of developing the site with a 62 unit, 3-story, wood-framed apartment building and related site
improvements including underground utilities, pavements, and stormwater management facilities. We
expect that the finished floor elevation of the building will be near existing site grades. Grading for the
project is expected to consist of cuts and fills with a maximum anticipated depth/thickness of about 5 feet.
However, deeper cuts may be required for underground utilities and stormwater management facilities.
Design drawings for the proposed apartment building and associated site improvements were not available
at the time this report was prepared. Once details regarding the proposed apartment building and
additional site improvements are known, we should be consulted to review the details and revise this report
if necessary.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The project site consists of five parcels with a total area of slightly above one acre. The site is bordered to
the north by single-family residences, to the east by Harrington Ave NE, to the south by the new extension
of NE 10th Street, and to the west by Glennwood Ave NE. Parcel number 7227801305 overlaps with the new
construction of the NE 10th Street extension with a portion remaining to the north of the road construction.
We anticipate that this portion will be included in the project area.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 2
Topographically, the site is relatively flat. Ground cover consists primarily of grass with a few scattered large
deciduous and coniferous trees. The northwest corner of the project site was used as a staging area for
construction equipment associated with the extension of NE 10th Street and is covered with medium gravel.
A plan view of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Subsurface Conditions
Mapped Geology: We reviewed published geologic mapping of the site vicinity through the Washington
State Department of Natural Resource’s web-based mapping application Washington Geologic
Information Portal (https://geologyportal.dnr.wa.gov/). The published mapping indicates the site is
underlain by Vashon glacial till (Qgt). The mapping describes this soil as mostly thin ablation till over
lodgment till, deposited by the Puget glacial lobe consisting of a generally compact, coherent unsorted
mixture of sand, silt clay and gravel. The mapping notes that north of the Cedar River, where the project
site is located, the till is mostly sand.
Subsurface Exploration: The subsurface evaluation for this project included advancement of five borings
(B-1 through B-5) completed throughout the area of the project site. The borings were extended to depths
of about 16 to 26½ feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) and their approximate locations are shown
on Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan.
Soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptive
logs of the subsurface explorations and the procedures utilized in the subsurface exploration program are
presented in Appendix A. A generalized description of soil conditions encountered in the explorations is
presented below. Please refer to the exploration logs in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the
conditions encountered at each exploration location.
Soil conditions observed in the borings generally consisted of three to twelve feet of medium dense to dense
sand with variable silt and gravel contents. Below this layer we encountered very dense sand with variable
silt and gravel contents that we interpret to be glacial till. All the explorations terminated within the glacial
till. The upper 4 to 5 feet of soils observed in our explorations was interpreted to be possibly undocumented
fill associated with previous development of the site and possibly demolition of the previously existing homes.
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered within our explorations. Fluctuations in groundwater levels will likely
occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time
the exploration was performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in
the life of the structure may be higher than indicated on the logs. The possibility of groundwater level
fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 3
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing included soil moisture content, grain size distribution, and modified proctor tests on
selected samples obtained from our explorations. The results of the moisture content tests are presented on
the boring logs in Appendix A and the grain size distribution and modified proctor test results are presented
in Appendix B. In general, moisture content testing indicates the sands within the upper 10 feet of existing
site grade had moisture contents ranging from about 4 to 12 percent with an average of about 9 percent.
Grain size distribution testing indicates the sands within the upper 7 feet of existing site grade had fines
contents ranging from about 19 to 30 percent. We collected cuttings from the auger and performed a
modified proctor test on the material. The modified proctor test yielded a maximum dry density of 136.2 pcf
and an optimum moisture content of 8.3 percent.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Considerations
Based on the results of our subsurface investigation as described in previous sections, it is our opinion the
proposed building can be supported on conventional shallow foundations bearing on medium dense to
very dense native soil or structural fill placed on properly prepared native soils, contingent on proper
design and construction practices and implementation of the recommendations presented in this report.
Geotechnical engineering recommendations for conventional shallow foundations and other earthwork
related phases of the project are presented below. The recommendations contained in this report are
based upon the results of field and laboratory testing (which are presented in Appendices A and B),
engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. ASTM and Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specification codes cited herein respectively refer to the
current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the 2016 edition of the
Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (M41-10).
Geologically Hazardous Areas
As part of our services, we evaluated the presence of regulated geologically hazardous areas (GHAs) at
the site. Chapter 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (the Code) designates GHAs as Erosion, Landslide,
Seismic, and Coal Mine Hazard Areas.
Steep Slope Hazard Areas: The code defines steep slope hazard areas as areas with an average slope of
25 percent or greater with a total relief of 15 feet or greater, or having an average slope of 40 percent or
greater. The project site does not meet the definition of a steep slope area.
Landslide Hazard Areas: The code defines a low landslide hazard area as an area with slopes less than
fifteen percent. Based on the relative flat topography, the site classifies as having a “low landslide
hazard”, based on the code definition.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 4
Erosion Hazard Areas: The code characterizes sites as having a low or high erosion hazard based on
information available through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). The NRCS maps the site
as being 70% Arents, Alderwood material (AmC) and 30% Ragnar-Indianola association both with a slope
less than 15 percent. Therefore, the site classifies as having a “low erosion hazard”, based on the code
definition.
Seismic Hazard Areas: The code characterizes sites as having either “low seismic hazard” or “high seismic
hazard” based on the subsurface conditions. A low seismic hazard area is defined as an area underlain by
dense soils or bedrock, generally having site classifications of A through D, as defined in the International
Building Code, 2012. It is our opinion that the project site classifies as having a “low seismic hazard”,
based on the code definition. More detailed information regarding seismic hazards is provided in the
seismic design considerations section of this report.
Coal Mine Hazard Areas: The code defines areas with low coal mine hazards as areas with no known mine
workings and no predicted subsidence. We reviewed the King County iMap for coal mine hazard mapping
as well as the Coal Mine Map Database located within the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources online Washington Geologic Information Portal. Based on a review of the readily available
information provided by these sources, no coal mine workings are documented within close vicinity of the
project site. Therefore, in our opinion the project site classifies as having a “low coal mine hazard”,
based on the code definition.
Seismic Design Considerations
The tectonic setting of western Washington is dominated by the Cascadia Subduction Zone formed by the
Juan de Fuca plate subducting beneath the North American Plate. This setting leads to intraplate, crustal,
and interplate earthquake sources. Seismic hazards relate to risks of injury to people and damage to
property resulting from these three principle earthquake sources.
Ground Surface Rupture: Based on our review of the USGS Quaternary age fault database for Washington
State, an inferred fault trace of the Seattle Fault Zone is located approximately 1 ½-miles to the north and
northwest of the project site. As the fault does not appear to cross the site, it is our opinion that the risk
of ground surface rupture at the site is low.
Landsliding: Based on the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding vicinity, it is our opinion
that the risk of earthquake-induced landsliding is low.
Soil Liquefaction: Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein cohesionless soils below the groundwater table
build up excess pore water pressures during earthquake loading. Liquefaction typically occurs in loose,
cohesionless soils, but may occur in denser soils if the ground shaking is sufficiently strong. The potential
hazardous impacts of liquefaction include liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading. Soil
conditions observed in our explorations consisted of dense to very dense sands with variable silt/gravel
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 5
contents. We did not encounter groundwater within our explorations. Based on the subsurface
conditions we encountered on the site, it is our opinion that the risk of liquefaction is low.
IBC Seismic Design Parameters: Based on site location and soil conditions, the values provided below are
recommended for seismic design. The values provided below are based on the 2015 IBC as the building
code reference document.
Site Preparation
Erosion Control Measures: Stripped surfaces and soil stockpiles are typically a source of runoff sediments.
We recommend that silt fences, berms, and/or swales be installed around the downslope side of stripped
areas and stockpiles in order to capture runoff water and sediment. If earthwork occurs during wet
weather, we recommend that all stripped surfaces be covered with straw to reduce runoff erosion,
whereas soil stockpiles should be protected with anchored plastic sheeting.
Temporary Drainage: Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a
manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. The
site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into and/or
over excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth-drum rolled at the end of each
day to facilitate drainage if inclement weather is forecasted. Accumulated water must be removed from
subgrades and work areas immediately and prior to performing further work in the area. Equipment
access may be limited and the amount of soil rendered unfit for use as structural fill may be greatly
increased if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely manner.
Description Value
2015 IBC Site Classification 1 C
Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.430 g (Site Class B)
S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.537 g (site Class B)
SMS Maximum considered spectral response
acceleration for a Short Period 1.430 g (Site Class C)
SM1 Maximum considered spectral response
acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.699 g (Site Class C)
SDS Five-percent damped design spectral response
acceleration for a Short Period 0.953 g (Site Class C)
SD1 Five-percent damped design spectral response
acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.466 g (Site Class C)
1. In general accordance with the 2015 International Building Code, Table 1613.5.2. IBC Site Class is based on
the average characteristics of the upper 100 feet of the subsurface profile. The borings completed for this
study extended to a maximum depth of 26½ feet below grade. ZGA therefore determined the Site Class
assuming that similar density soils extend to 100 feet as suggested by published geologic maps for the
project area.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 6
Clearing and Stripping: Once TESC measures are installed, we expect site preparation to continue with
clearing and grubbing brush and trees, and stripping of organic rich topsoil. We recommend all tree
stumps and roots larger than ½ inch in diameter be cleared and grubbed from the areas planned for
improvement. Based on our explorations, stripping depths to remove topsoil is estimated to be about 6
inches. Stripping depths may be greater near trees and brush to fully remove root systems. All clearing
and stripping debris should be wasted off site or, if approved, used for topsoil in landscape areas.
Subgrade Preparation: Once site preparation is complete, all areas that are at design subgrade elevation
or areas that will receive new structural fill should be moisture conditioned to a moisture content within
plus or minus two percent of optimum moisture content for compaction. The subgrade should then be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition.
The existing near-surface site soils consist of loose to dense silty sand or sand with silt at or generally
somewhat above optimum moisture content for compaction. During wet weather, achieving a moisture
content adequate for compaction will be impossible. Therefore, we recommend subgrade preparation
and earthwork, in general, be completed during drier periods of the year when the soil moisture content
can be controlled by aeration and drying. If earthwork or construction activities take place during
extended periods of wet weather, or if the in situ moisture conditions are elevated above the optimum
moisture content, the soils will become unstable and not compactable. In the event the exposed subgrade
becomes unstable, yielding, or unable to be compacted due to high moisture conditions, we recommend
that the materials be removed to a sufficient depth in order to develop stable subgrade soils that can be
compacted to the minimum recommended levels. The severity of construction problems will be
dependent, in part, on the precautions that are taken by the contractor to protect the subgrade soils.
Once compacted, subgrades should be evaluated through density testing and proof rolling with a loaded
dump truck or heavy rubber-tired construction equipment weighing at least 20 tons to assess the
subgrade adequacy and to detect soft and/or yielding soils. In the event that compaction fails to meet
the specified criteria, the upper 12 inches of subgrade should be scarified and moisture conditioned as
necessary to obtain at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density (per ASTM D1557). Those soils
which are soft, yielding, or unable to be compacted to the specified criteria should be over-excavated and
replaced with suitable material as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. As an
alternate to subgrade compaction during wet site conditions or wet weather, the upper 12 inches of
subgrade should be overexcavated to a firm, non-yielding and undisturbed condition and backfilled with
compacted imported structural fill consisting of free-draining Gravel Borrow or crushed rock.
Freezing Conditions: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, exposed subgrades should be
allowed to thaw and then be compacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill. Alternatively,
the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to expose unfrozen soil prior to placing
subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen soil should not be reused as structural fill
until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper moisture content, which may not be possible during
winter months.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 7
Structural Fill Materials, Placement, and Compaction
Structural fill includes any material placed below or adjacent to foundations, below concrete slabs, within
utility trenches, or other areas to support settlement-sensitive site improvements. Prior to the placement
of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended in the Site
Preparation section of this report.
Laboratory Testing: Representative samples of on-site and imported soils to be used as structural fill
should be submitted for laboratory testing at least 4 days in advance of its intended use in order to
complete the necessary Proctor tests.
Reuse of Site Soils as Structural Fill: We expect that the finished grade will stay very close to the existing
grade and therefore no substantial fill placement will be required. However, we expect the reuse of site
soils as structural fill will be desirable for underground utilities.
The suitability for reuse of site soils as structural fill depends on the composition and moisture content of
the soil. Soils encountered in excavations at the site are expected to consist of silty sand or sand with silt.
As the amount of fines increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture
content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to the
appropriate levels when the moisture content is more than approximately 2 percent above or below the
optimum moisture content (per ASTM D1557). Optimum moisture content is the moisture content which
results in the greatest compacted dry density with a specified compactive effort.
Laboratory testing of select soil samples indicates the in-place moisture content of site soils ranges from
about 4 to 12 percent. Based on the results of the modified proctor test, the optimum moisture content
of site soils is 8.3 percent. Therefore, site soils appear near the optimum moisture content for
compaction. Site soils should be suitable for structural fill during periods of dry weather with some slight
moisture conditioning. However, during wet weather, site soils will quickly become too wet for reuse as
structural fill. Therefore, we recommend earth work for the project be scheduled for the drier summer
months.
Imported Structural Fill: The appropriate type of imported structural fill will depend on weather
conditions. During extended periods of dry weather, we recommend imported fill, at a minimum, meet
the requirements of Common Borrow as specified in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2016 Washington State
Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction
(WSDOT Standard Specifications). During wet weather and/or wet site conditions, higher-quality
structural fill might be required, as Common Borrow may contain sufficient fines to be moisture-sensitive.
During wet conditions, we recommend that imported structural fill consist of a “clean”, free-draining pit-
run sand and gravel. Such material should generally contain less than 5 percent fines, based on that soil
fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve, and not contain discrete particles greater than 3 inches in maximum
dimension. Alternatively, Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Gravel Borrow conforming to Sections 9-
03.9(3) and 9-03.14(1), respectively, of the WSDOT Standard Specifications could be used during wet
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 8
weather. It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is, in many cases, is weather-dependent.
Delays due to inclement weather are common, even when using select granular fill. We recommend that
site grading and earthwork be scheduled for the drier months, if possible.
Fill Placement and Compaction: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of a thickness adequate
for adequate compaction throughout the entire lift thickness with the compaction equipment used.
Typically, the maximum loose lift thickness that can be adequately compacted with typical compaction
equipment is 12 inches. However, in cases where large vibratory rollers and imported fill with less than
5% fines are used, the lift thickness can be increased. Increasing the loose lift thickness beyond 12 inches
should be based on field performance testing during construction prior to placement of production fills.
Thinner lifts may be necessary, depending on the size and weight of the compaction equipment. Each lift
of fill should be compacted to the minimum levels recommended in the table below based on the
maximum laboratory dry density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Compaction Test.
Structural fill placed in municipal rights-of-way should be placed and compacted in accordance with the
jurisdiction codes and standards. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer be present during grading
so that an adequate number of density tests may be conducted as structural fill placement occurs. In this
way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds.
Recommended Soil Compaction Levels
Location Minimum Percent Compaction*
Stripped native subgrade soils, prior to fill placement (upper 12 inches) 95
All fill below building floor slabs and foundations 95
Upper two feet of fill below pavement finished grade 95
Pavement fill below two feet from finished grade 92
Utility trench backfill greater than two feet from finished grade 92
Upper two feet of trench backfill from finished grade 95
Landscape Areas 90
* ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density
Utility Trenching and Backfilling
We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such
as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. Trench excavation safety guidelines are presented in WAC
Chapter 296-155 and WISHA RCW Chapter 49.17.
Utility Subgrade Preparation: We recommend that all utility subgrades be firm and unyielding and free of
soils that are loose, disturbed, or pumping. Soils that pump or yield should be removed and replaced. All
structural fill used to replace over-excavated soils should be compacted as recommended in the Structural
Fill section of this report.
Bedding and Initial Backfill: We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed
below and at least 12 inches above all utilities or in general accordance with the utility manufacturer’s
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 9
recommendations and local ordinances. We recommend the bedding consist of granular material free
from particles greater than 3 inches. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around
the haunches of the pipe, or material such as pea gravel should be used below the spring line of the pipes
to eliminate the need for mechanical compaction in this portion of the trenches. If water is encountered
in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement.
Trench Backfill: Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill should be in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial
lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from
damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly
above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern.
Construction Dewatering
Groundwater was not encountered in our explorations. If groundwater is encountered during
construction, some form of temporary dewatering may be required. Conventional dewatering methods,
such as pumping from sump pits, should likely be adequate for temporary removal of groundwater
encountered during shallow excavation at the site. Construction dewatering systems should be designed,
maintained, and permitted by the contractor.
Shallow Foundation Recommendations
We recommend the building foundations be supported on the medium dense to very dense soils
encountered in our explorations at a depth of 2.5 to 4 feet below existing site grades. Based on the results
of our explorations, some loose, undocumented fill may be encountered at footing subgrade elevations.
As such, some over-excavation and replacement of loose, undocumented fill with structural fill may be
required. The need for over-excavation and replacement of loose, undocumented fill should be evaluated
by a representative from Zipper Geo Associates during construction. Where over-excavation is required,
the width of the over-excavation beyond footing edges should be equal to the required over-excavation
depth. For example, if the footing width is 12 inches and an over-excavation depth of two feet is required,
the total width of the over-excavation should be five feet. As an alternative, the width of over-excavations
can be limited to the footing width provided the over-excavation is backfilled with controlled density fill
or lean mix concrete having a minimum 28 day compressive strength of 100 psi. Over-excavation and
replacement with structural fill shall be in accordance with the recommendations provided in the
Structural Fill Materials, Placement and Compaction section of this report. Recommendations for shallow
spread footings are provided below.
Subgrade Preparation: Where loose, undocumented fill is not encountered at footing subgrade elevation,
we recommend that the subgrade exposed at the bottom of foundation excavations be compacted to a
firm and non-yielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density
determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. If the exposed subgrade cannot be compacted to the
required density, we recommend that it be removed to an adequate depth as recommended by a
representative from ZGA and replaced with compacted structural fill placed in accordance with this report.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 10
Allowable Bearing Pressure: Continuous and isolated column footings bearing on subgrades prepared as
recommended above may be designed for a maximum allowable, net, bearing pressure of 3,000 psf if
supported as recommended in this report. A one-third increase of the bearing pressure may be used for
short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic forces.
Shallow Foundation Depth and Width: For frost protection, the bottom of all exterior footings should bear
at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade, whereas the bottoms of interior footings
should bear at least 12 inches below the surrounding slab surface level. We recommend that all
continuous wall and isolated column footings be at least 12 and 24 inches wide, respectively.
Lateral Resistance: Resistance to lateral loads can be calculated assuming a ultimate passive resistance of
405 pcf equivalent fluid pressure (triangular distribution) for footings backfilled with structural fill as
recommended in this report. We recommend an ultimate base friction coefficient of 0.50. If allowable
stress design is used, we recommend a minimum safety factor of 1.5 be used for lateral resistance
calculations. We recommend that passive resistance be neglected in the upper 18 inches of embedment.
Estimated Settlement: Assuming the foundation subgrade soils and structural fill compaction are
completed in accordance with recommendations presented herein, we estimate that total static footing
settlements will be 1 inch or less. We estimate that differential footing settlement will be ½ inch or less
in 40 feet.
Subsurface Drainage: Although no groundwater was encountered in our explorations, as a precautionary
measure, we recommend a perimeter footing drain be installed around the building to collect surface
water infiltration if impermeable hard surfacing, such as asphalt pavement, is not extended to the
foundation walls of the building. The perimeter footing drain should consist of a 4-inch-diameter
perforated pipe within an envelope of pea gravel or washed rock, extending at least 6 inches on all sides
of the pipe. The gravel envelope should be wrapped with filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N) to reduce the
migration of fines from the surrounding soil. The invert of the footing drain should be placed no higher
than the bottom of the footing. The perforations should be placed down. The perimeter foundation drain
with cleanouts should not be connected to roof downspout drains and should be constructed to discharge
into the site storm water system or other appropriate outlet.
On-Grade Concrete Slabs
Subgrade Preparation: Subgrades for on-grade slabs should be prepared in accordance with the Site
Preparation and Structural Fill sections of this report.
Slab Base: To provide a uniform slab bearing surface, capillary break, and even working surface, we
recommend that on-grade slabs be underlain by a 6-inch thick layer of clean, compacted crushed rock
meeting the requirements of Crushed Surfacing Top Course as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT
Standard Specifications with the modification that a maximum of 7.5 percent of the material passes the
U.S. No 200 sieve.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 11
Vapor Barrier: From a geotechnical perspective, a vapor barrier is not considered necessary beneath the
slab on grade floor unless moisture sensitive floor coverings and/or adhesives are used. If a vapor barrier
is used, we recommend using a 10-mil (minimum), puncture-resistant proprietary product such as Stego
Wrap, or an approved equivalent that is classified as a Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E
1745. Overlap lengths and the appropriate tape used to seal the laps should be in accordance the vapor
retarder manufacturer’s recommendations. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the
slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions
regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier.
Permanent Drainage Considerations
Surface Drainage: Final site grades should be sloped to carry surface water away from buildings and other
drainage-sensitive areas. Additionally, site grades should be designed such that concentrated runoff on
softscape surfaces is avoided. Any surface runoff directed towards softscaped slopes should be collected
at the top of the slope and routed to the bottom of the slope and discharged in a manner that prevents
erosion.
Retaining Wall
Lateral Earth Pressures: The lateral soil pressures acting on backfilled retaining walls will depend on the
nature and density of the soil behind the wall, and the ability of the wall to yield in response to the earth
loads. Yielding walls (i.e. walls that are free to translate or rotate) that are able to displace laterally at
least 0.001H, where H is the height of the wall, may be designed for active earth pressures. Non-yielding
walls (i.e. walls that are not free to translate or rotate) should be designed for at-rest earth pressures.
Non-yielding walls include walls that are braced to another wall or structure, and wall corners.
Assuming that walls are backfilled and drained as described in the following paragraphs, we recommend
that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf
(active earth pressure). Non-yielding walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf
(at-rest earth pressure).
Surcharge pressures due to sloping backfill, adjacent footings, vehicles, construction equipment, etc. must
be added to these lateral earth pressure values. For traffic loads, we recommend using an equivalent
two-foot soil surcharge of about 250 psf.
For yielding and non-yielding walls with level backfill conditions, we recommend that a uniformly
distributed seismic pressure of 7H psf for the active case and 12H psf for the at-rest case, where H is the
height of the wall, be applied to the walls.
The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of no buildup of hydrostatic pressure
behind the wall. If groundwater is allowed to saturate the backfill soils, hydrostatic pressures will act
against a retaining wall; however, if the recommended drainage system is included with each retaining
wall, we do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 12
Adequate drainage measures must be installed to collect and direct subsurface water away from subgrade
walls. All backfilled walls should include a drainage aggregate zone extending a minimum of two feet from
the back of wall for the full height of the wall and wide enough at the base of the wall to allow seepage
to flow to the footing drain. The drainage aggregate should consist of material meeting the requirements
of WSDOT 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Walls. A minimum 4-inch diameter, perforated PVC drain pipe
should be provided at the base of backfilled walls to collect and direct subsurface water to an appropriate
discharge point. We recommend placing a non-woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent,
around the free draining backfill material.
Stormwater Infiltration Feasibility
With respect to stormwater infiltration, the City of Renton adopts the 2016 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM) with amendments. Based on our review of the 2016 KCSWDM, the applicant
must demonstrate, through the opinion of a geotechnical professional, that sufficient permeable soil
exists to allow construction of a properly functioning infiltration facility. Our explorations encountered
glacial till at a depth of about 3 to 5 feet below existing site grade. For purposes of stormwater infiltration,
glacial till (or hardpan) is generally considered a hydraulically restrictive layer, or essentially impermeable
for purposes of stormwater infiltration. As such, it is our opinion that sufficient permeable soils do not
exist at the site and therefore stormwater infiltration is not feasible, in our opinion.
Pavements
Pavement Life and Maintenance: It should be realized that asphaltic pavements are not maintenance-
free. The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of
performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be
required. A 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 12 years.
Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better ling-term performance, but would cost
more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator” cracking and other
failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and
low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. The recommendations
presented below are based on AASHTO Low-Volume Road Design methodologies as presented in the 1993
AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
Traffic and Reliability: Our design assumes 100,000, 18-kip equivalent single axle loads over the life of the
pavement along the main access roads and a 75% reliability.
Soil Design Values: Pavement subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of the medium stiff silt deposit we
encountered in our explorations. Our analysis assumes a minimum California Bearing Ration (CBR) value
of 10 is appropriate for this material.
Recommended Pavement Sections: For light duty pavements (parking stalls), we recommend 2 inches of
asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base course. For heavy duty pavements (main access
roads, truck delivery routes, etc.), we recommend 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 13
rock base course. A thicker asphalt section or concrete pavements should be considered in front of
dumpster enclosures.
Materials and Construction: We recommend the following regarding asphalt pavement materials and
pavement construction.
• Subgrade Preparation: Upper 24 inches of pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report.
• Asphalt Concrete: We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG
58-22 or PG 64-22 Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the WSDOT Standard
Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the
aggregate gradation control points for ½-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA
Proportions of Materials.
• Base Course: We recommend that the crushed aggregate base course conform to Section
9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications.
• Compaction: All base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry
density determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. We recommend that asphalt be compacted
to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density or 96 percent of Marshall
(Maximum laboratory) density.
We recommend that a Portland cement concrete pavement (CCP) be utilized in entrance and exit sections,
dumpster pads, loading dock areas, drive-thru areas or other areas where extensive wheel maneuvering
or repeated loading are expected. The dumpster pad should be large enough to support the wheels of
the truck which will bear the load of the dumpster. We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of CCP
underlain by 4 inches of crushed aggregate base. Although not required for structural support, the base
course layer is recommended to help reduce potentials for slab curl, shrinkage cracking, and subgrade
“pumping” through joints. Proper joint spacing will also be required to prevent excessive slab curling and
shrinkage cracking. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and dowelled where
necessary for load transfer.
Portland cement concrete should be designed with proper air-entrainment and have a minimum
compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing. Adequate reinforcement and
number of longitudinal and transverse control joints should be placed in the rigid pavement in accordance
with ACI requirements. The joints should be sealed as soon as possible (in accordance with sealant
manufacturer’s instructions) to minimize water infiltration into the soil.
Harrington Ave Apartments
ZGA Project No. 2072.01
May 15, 2019
Page 14
CLOSURE
The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations
completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations for the current phase of
the project were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information
to formulate our recommendations. Project plans were not available at the time this report was prepared.
We therefore recommend Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be provided an opportunity to review the final plans
and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design
considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project
design.
The performance of shallow foundations and slabs on grade depend greatly on proper site preparation
and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide
geotechnical engineering services during the site preparation and foundation construction phases of the
project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified geotechnical engineer
could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely
manner as the project construction progresses.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Renton Housing Authority, and its agents, for
specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety,
excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that
changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Zipper
Geo Associates, LLC reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in
writing.
B-4GLENNWOOD AVE NE
HARRINGTON AVE NENE 10TH STB-1B-2B-3B-5FIGUREJob No.Zipper Geo Associates, LLC19019 36th Ave. W.,Suite ELynnwood, WASHT. of11SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN2072.01SEPTEMBER 20181HARRINTON APARTMENTSNE 10TH ST AND HARRINGTON AVE NERENTON, WASHINGTONAPPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET0808040LEGENDB-1BORING NUMBER ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEREFERENCE: GOOGLE MAPS 2018.
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS
Field Exploration Description
Our field exploration for this project included advancing five borings across the proposed site of the
project on September 12, 2018. The approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Figure
1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined in the field based on hand
measurements from existing site features. As such, the exploration locations should be considered
accurate only to the degree implied by the measurement method. Descriptive logs of the borings are
enclosed in this appendix. A current topographic survey of the site was not available at the time of this
report. Therefore, ground surface elevations of the explorations were not determined.
The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company
(Holocene Drilling Inc.) working under subcontract to ZGA. The borings were advanced using the hollow-
stem auger drilling method. An engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the
subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored
in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Samples
were obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test at 2.5- to 5-foot intervals throughout the drilling
operation.
The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside
diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches.
The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total
number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or
“blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped
and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard
Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency
of cohesive soils.
The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in the borings,
based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our
log indicates the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred
the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and
approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings. If groundwater was encountered, the
approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, are depicted on the logs.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-1
Page 1 of 2
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-1
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 18
S-2 18
S-3 0
S-4 8
S-5 18
S-6 18
47
30
20
20
76
72
GSA
MC
MC
5 inches of organics
Dense, damp, light brown, Silty SAND, with gravel
(Possible fill)
Medium dense, moist, brown, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
No Recovery
Medium dense, moist, brown-gray, SAND, with silt, some
gravel, slight mottling (Weathered Glacial Till)
Grades to very dense
Very dense, moist, tan, SAND, some silt (Glacial till)
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
25
30
35
40
45
50
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-1
Page 2 of 2
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-1
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-7 18 65 GSA
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Glacial till)
Boring terminated at approximately 26 1/2 feet.
No groundwater observed during exploration.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-2
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-2
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 inches
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 12
S-2 12
S-3 16
S-4 18
S-5 11
49
60
63
73
50/5
MC
MC
MC
MC
6 inches of organics
Dense, damp, brown, Silty SAND, with gravel slight
mottling (Possible fill)
Dense, damp, gray, SAND, with silt and gravel (Weathered
Glacial Till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
(Glacial Till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel,
slight mottling (Glacial till)
Boring terminated at approximately 16 ft.
No groundwater observed during time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-3
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-3
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 0
S-2 6
S-3 18
S-4 9
S-5 11
S-6 10
50/2
23
74
50/3
50/5
50/4
GSA
MC
MC
4 inches of organics
Light brown, silty SAND, some gravel (Possible fill)
No recovery (Blow counts overstated)
Medium dense, moist, gray-tan, SAND, with silt, some
gravel (Weathered glacial till)
Very dense, moist, gray, silty SAND, some gravel (Glacial
till)
Grades to with silt and gravel
Grades to trace gravel
Grades to some silt and gravel
Boring terminated at approximately 21 ft. No groundwater
observed at the time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-4
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-4
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 inches
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 6
S-2 18
S-3 12
S-4 0
S-5 8
S-6 4
7
26
50/6
50/3
50/2
50/3
GSA
MC
MC
2 inches of organics
Loose, damp, orange-brown, Gravelly SAND, with silt,
trace organics (Possible fill)
Medium dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Weathered glacial till
Very dense, moist, gray-brown, SAND, with silt and gravel
(Glacial till)
No recovery (Blow counts overstated)
Grades to gray, some gravel
Grades to with gravel, some silt
Boring terminated at approximately 20 1/2 feet.
No groundwater observed at the time of drilling.
Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.:
Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type:
Drill Rig:Logged by:
Standard Penetration Test
Hammer Weight and Drop:
0
5
10
15
20
25
SAMPLE LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm)
2-inch O.D. Split spoon Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content
3-inch I.D. Shelby tube Bentonite Plastic Limit Liquid Limit
Grout/Concrete Natural Water Content
Screened Casing
Blank Casing
GSA = Grain Size Analysis Date:Project No.:
200W = 200 Wash Analysis
Cons. = Consolidation Test
Att. = Atterberg Limits
NE 10th St & Harrington Ave NE
TESTING KEY Groundwater level at time of
drilling (ATD) or on date of
measurement.
Renton, WA
Sep-18 2072.01
19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E
Lynnwood, WA
BORING
LOG:B-5
Page 1 of 1
GROUNDWATER LEGEND
Harrington Ave Apartments
The stratification lines represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types. The transition may be
gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional
information.
Boring Location:
B-5
Date Drilled:Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (Inches)Ground WaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot)Blow CountsSoil TestingSee Site and Exploration Plan
N/A
September 12, 2018
Holocene
H.S.A.
D90 Truck Rig
8 in.
Auto
SNM
11/2/120 602040
S-1 9
S-2 10
S-3 9
S-4 6
S-5 14
S-6 6
32
25
50/3
50/6
50/6
50/6
MC
MC
MC
MC
6 inches of organics
Dense, moist, tan, SAND, with silt, some gravel (Possible
fill)
Medium dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, some gravel
(Weathered glacial till)
Very dense, moist, gray, SAND, with silt, trace gravel
(Glacial till)
Grades to some gravel
Grades to some silt
Boring terminated at approximately 20 1/2 feet. No
groundwater observed at the time of drilling.
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS
A series of laboratory tests were performed by ZGA during the course of this study to evaluate the index
and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests
performed are given below.
Visual Classification
Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the
exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight
containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as
required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Visual soil
classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and
accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in
Appendix A.
Moisture Content Determinations
Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the
explorations to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in
general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM D 2216. Moisture contents are presented
on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
Grain Size Distributions
A grain size analysis determines the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample.
Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422.
The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and
are presented in this appendix.
Modified Proctor
A modified proctor test determines the maximum dry density and optimum moisture to obtain a
maximum density under a certain compaction effort. The modified proctor test was performed on
representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of the modified proctor test
are presented in Appendix B.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartment
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-1 2 1/2-4 9.3 Silty SAND, with
gravelS-1 30.5
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-1 25-26 1/2 8.3 SAND, with silt,
some gravelS-7 12.7
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-3 5-6 1/2 7.3 SAND, with silt,
some gravelS-2 27.6
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS
Comments:
36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200
Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse
COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER
Project No.:PROJECT NAME:
Harrington Ave
Apartments
DATE OF TESTING:
Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%)Fines (%) Description
B-4 2 1/2-4 9.1 Gravelly SAND,
with siltS-1 19.3
2072.01
9/13/2018
ASTM D 422Test Results Summary
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC
Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
145
150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Dry Unit Weight (pcf)Moisture Content (%)
LABORATORY
COMPACTION
CURVE
Compaction Size
Test Standard Mold
Harrington Ave Apartments
Job No.
Job Name
Date Tested
Sample No.
Location
Test Results
Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19023 36th Avenue West, Suite D Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 582-9928
Test No.Field Moist.2 3 4
Dry Density (lbs/cu.ft.)132.9 129.4 130.4 #DIV/0!
Moisture Content (%)9.3 10.1 6.5 #DIV/0!
1557-B 4-inch
2.80
2.70
2.60
2.50
2.40
Zero Air Voids Curves For
Various Specific Gravities
2072.01
Depth / Elevation9/14/2018
09122018
Cuttings 5-7 1/2 ft
134.0 136.2
8.38.3
Maximum Dry Density / Oversize Corrected (pcf)
Opt. Moisture Content / Oversize Corrected (%)
Sample Description:
Comments:
Oversize Fraction (%) / Sieve Used 3/49
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Renton Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Master Site Plan
Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit
LUA14-00001475, SA-M, CUP
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
SUMMARY
The City has requested Master Site Plan review and a Conditional Use Permit to modify the Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Area by adding 90 additional residential units, increasing the height limit
and lot coverage requirements and reducing setbacks. The City has also requested a change in the
vesting timeline. The Master Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit are approved with
conditions. The 10 year expiration request is granted.
TESTIMONY
Rocale Timmons, senior planner, described the history of the project and the progress to date. She
described the site characteristics and the revisions being requested for this process. Ms. Timmons
stated since 2011, there have been some entitlements of land uses. The City and its partners have
reevaluated the original Master Site Plan since the 2011 approvals of the Planned Action Ordinance
and issuance of the FEIS. The preferred alternative was Alternative 3 from the FEIS. The City and its
partners are requesting several changes to the preferred alternative including the addition of 90 more
residential units, increased building heights, reduced setbacks, increased lot coverages and
reclassification of local streets. In return, the City will be able to expand the proposed public park to
3.2 acres.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
The City is requesting Master Site Plan review at this stage to allow for the proposed changes. This is
not site plan review for individual project components; that will come later. This decision is
conceptual only in nature. As proposed and conditioned, all zoning, development standards and
design standards will be met. The decision today covers only lot coverage, residential density,
building height and an increased timeline for vesting. The hope is to streamline the process going
forward and to reflect the revised design. Approval of the Master Site Plan and Conditional Use
Permit will facilitate phased site planning over time and provide more certainty to the development
partners. The CUP approval is for the height increase. The City would like this project to have a 10
year vesting timeline.
All environmental review has been accomplished as either part of the initial FEIS for the original
Master Site Plan are as amended for the revised Master Site Plan. No new or different impacts are
anticipated from the proposed changes. Demolition and Disposition Permits for all public housing has
already been approved by HUD. All affected families in public housing have already received either
vouchers or relocation assistance. No public comments were received regarding the proposed
revisions to the approved Master Site Plan.
The additional units will pay impact fees and development charges based on school district and City
requirements. The project includes installation of a regional stormwater system, though each
individual development will provide for its own stormwater.
Public Testimony
Larry Joel Dean of 1100 Harrington Avenue NE lives in the redevelopment master plan area. He
spoke generally in favor of the project, but had several items of concern. He understands this is a long
term project with many phases, but has been living in an active construction zone for a long time. He
is looking forward to the completion of the project.
Mr. Dean is president of the homeowners association for Olympic Condos, which represents 29 units
in the center of the master plan. He stated his residents feel ignored by the City and communication
has been inadequate. Specifically, Mr. Dean related the story of the road construction work that
occurred over the Christmas break. The contractor failed to place a steel plate over the driveway to
the condos. As a result, a resident got their car stuck in the gap and had to have the vehicle towed.
The contractor eventually returned from the break and placed the steel plate in place, but only after
the damage was done.
Mr. Dean stated he was concerned about the reduced setbacks along SR 900 and the increased
building height. He currently lives next to a vacant lot that is slated to become a six story building. He
reiterated he is generally very supportive of the project, but is concerned about communication with
and from the City.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
Staff Rebuttal
Rocale Timmons apologized for the incident with the steel plate. She explained the project timeline,
which is in excess of ten years. She also stated the road improvements along Harrington Road will
likely last another six months. Ms. Timmons stated the City would support a condition of approval
that required notification in addition to what is currently required by City code, such as asking each
individual phase to provide information to surrounding property owners about timelines and contact
information.
EXHIBITS
The December 30, 2014 staff report Exhibits 1-15 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself
were admitted into the record during the hearing. The staff PowerPoint was admitted as Exhibit
16 during the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. The applicants are the City of Renton, the Renton Housing Authority and the
Sunset Terrace Development, LLC.
2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on December 30, 2014 at
10:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers.
3. Project Description. Sunset Terrace in northeast Renton is the oldest multifamily public
housing complex directly managed by the Renton Housing Authority. It was constructed in 1959 and
contains 110 dwelling units in 27 buildings. The City of Renton, along with the Renton Housing
Authority (RHA), the King County Library System, Colipitts Development, and community partners,
is redeveloping approximately 15.28-acres of Sunset Terrace within the larger Sunset Area
Community Neighborhood.
The Sunset Terrace public housing community is generally bounded by Sunset Lane NE and
Glenwood Avenue NE on the north, NE 10th Street on the east, NE Sunset Boulevard (State Route
[SR] 900) on the south, and Edmonds Avenue NE on the west. RHA owns additional vacant and
residential land along Edmonds Avenue NE, Glenwood Avenue NE, Harrington Ave NE, Kirkland
Ave NE, and Sunset Lane NE, and the Authority plans to incorporate these additional properties into
the Sunset Terrace redevelopment for housing and associated services.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
Redevelopment of this area envisions Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-income community
anchored by a new public library and a new park. Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and
affordable rental housing in multi-story, multi-family townhomes and apartments, along with
commercial and retail space. Proposed residential land includes apartments and attached townhomes
that are generally between two and four stories in height, extending to five and six stories along SR
900, which will provide 722 total dwelling units. Proposed commercial space would equal between
19,500-59,000sf, with 15,000sf consisting of a newly relocated Renton Highlands Library (this use
has already been permitted and is under construction), and the rest consisting of retail or office space
depending on market needs.
The NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was issued on April 1, 2011. The
City completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) to redevelop the 15.28 acre Sunset Terrace public housing community (May 2011) into a
mixed use, mixed density, mixed income community anchored by a new public p ark and library. The
City also completed Planned Action Ordinance (#5610) in accordance with the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). Since the original FEIS analysis, redevelopment efforts have continued and
additional site planning has occurred. As a consequence, the applicants are now proposing changes to
the number and configuration of units.
The revised development proposal will add 90 more units to the Sunset Terrace area, though the
neighborhood total will remain the same. Also, the City has reconfigured the proposed public park
and expanded it to 3.2 acres. This required a reduction in the footprint of the adjacent buildings and
commensurate increases in building heights and density at these locations. To do this, the City must
increase the lot coverage and building heights within the Sunset Terrace area and reduce the required
street setbacks. The original FEIS Preferred Alternative (#3), Record of Decision and Planned Action
Ordinance contemplated 90 fewer units, larger setbacks from SR 900, shorter buildings and different
street profiles.
To accomplish these changes, a NEPA Reevaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) NEPA regulations, is required. The NEPA Reevaluation
must demonstrate the original conclusions of the FEIS remain valid. SEPA also provides a process,
using an Addendum to the prior FEIS where new information or analysis does not substantially
change prior conclusions about impacts (WAC 197-11-706). A Reevaluation, consistent with
applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and a SEPA addendum, was
prepared to evaluate the proposed changes to the Master Site Plan. The Reevaluation and Addendum
(December 8, 2014) concluded there are no new or different impacts resulting from the change and
the conclusions of the FEIS are still valid.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
To accommodate the localized change in density, the City has requested Master Site Plan review. The
City has requested a Conditional Use Permit to increase the height limit and lot coverage
requirements and reduce setbacks in the areas proposed for additional units. The City has also
requested an extension of the vesting timeline to 10 years.
In total, there will be 722 dwelling units (including the 90 additional units requested under the present
proposal). Twenty six of the units have already been constructed by the Renton Housing Authority
(RHA). The 90 additional units will be spread across Master Plan Sites C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J.
Site C: The RHA Edmonds Apartments site is approximately 1.7 acres within the Center Village
(CV) zone. Proposed for the site is a four-story multi-family building, over one-story of structured
parking, containing no more than 112 apartment units. The proposed building height is 50 feet and
would orient towards Edmonds Avenue NE, with a direct sidewalk connection. The original proposal
had contemplated 99 units for this site.
Site D: The RHA Sunset Terrace Apartments site is approximately 0.51 acres within the CV Zone.
Proposed for the site is a five-story multi-family building containing no more than 54 apartment units.
The FEIS Preferred Alternative had contemplated 41 units on this site. Units may be redistributed
among Sites D and G provided the NEPA Reevaluation conclusions are maintained (Staff Report
Exhibit 2). The proposed building height is 60 feet and would orient towards Sunset Lane NE, with a
direct sidewalk connection. Parking is anticipated to be under building.
Site E: The RHA Sunset Park West Townhomes site is approximately 0.55 acres and is zoned
Residential-14. The proposed development consists of two, three-story, multi-family residential
buildings with associated garage parking. These buildings contain eight apartment and ten townhome
dwelling units for a total of 18 units1.
Site F: The RHA Sunset Court Townhomes site is approximately 0.88 acres and is zoned CV. The
proposed development consists of two, two-story, multi-family residential buildings with associated
surface parking. These buildings contain ten townhome dwelling units. The proposed building height
is 30 feet2.
1 The Staff Report Findings No. 6 lists this site as having a total of 10 units in the approved and revised site plans.
The language above is from Staff Report Finding No. 10. The chart on page 4 of the Staff Report l imits the total
units to 722. This decision is for a conceptual site plan limited to a total of 722 units to be constructed in several
phases and in several different buildings and locations. If the City wishes to increase the total number of units to
account for the discrepancy between the Staff Report Findings for Site E, they are encouraged to request a
reconsideration.
2 There is also a discrepancy between the Staff Report Finding Nos. 6 and 11 with respect to the total number of
units proposed for this site. As noted above, this decision limits the total number of units in the Master Site Plan to
722.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
Site G: The RHA Sunset Park Townhomes East (Piha) site is approximately 1.09 acres in size and
zoned CV. The proposed development consists of three multi-story, multi-family residential buildings
with a below grade parking structure. Future plans include 3 buildings containing a total of 57 multi-
family units with a mix of 1, 2, and 3-bedroom units. Units may be redistributed among Sites D and
G provided the NEPA Revaluation conclusions are maintained (Exhibit 2). The buildings range in
height from two to four stories, and the overall proposed building height is 48 feet. Proposed off-site
improvements include a new sidewalk along Sunset Lane NE. The FEIS considered 56 units for this
site.
Site H: The Colpitts Sunset Terrace Development Building A site is approximately 0.99 acres and is
located within the CV zone. A six -story, 68-foot tall, mixed-use building with associated structured
parking is proposed for the site. The building would contain a total of 117 residential units (up from
111 units in the original proposal) and about 19,500sf of commercial space including a 15,000sf King
County Library facility (LUA13-001720). Units between sites H, I, and J may be redistributed at the
time of Site Plan Review.
Site I: The Colpitts Sunset Terrace Development Building B site is approximately 1.18 acres and is
located within the CV Zone. A six-story, 62-foot tall, multi-family project with associated structured
parking is proposed for the site. The building would contain a total of 196 residential units. The FEIS
had considered 188 units for this site. Units between sites H, I, and J may be redistributed at the time
of Site Plan Review. Vehicular access to structured parking on the site would be provided at multiple
points along Sunset Lane NE. Pedestrian access to a residential lobby would also occur from Sunset
Lane NE.
Site J: The Colpitts Sunset Terrace Development Building C site is approximately 0.74 acres and is
located within the CV zone. A five-story multi-family project with associated structured parking is
proposed for the site. The building would contain a total of approximately 110 residential units (up
from 104 units). Units between sites H, I, and J may be redistributed at the time of Site Plan Review.
Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and affordable rental housing in multi-story, multi-family
townhomes and apartments, along with commercial and retail space. Defining features of the site plan
include:
An expanded Sunset Neighborhood Park centrally located within the site.
A circular local road system that facilitates circulation around the park, connecting Sunset
Lane, NE 10th, and the southern end of Glenwood Avenue NE.
Compatibility with future multimodal SR 900 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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
Mixed-use development with residential and commercial uses including retail space and a
library.
A Library situated at the corner of NE 10th and Sunset Blvd NE across from the proposed
expanded park (LUA13-001720).
The site is located within Zone 2 of the Aquifer protection Area. There are no other critical areas
located on site.
The property is zoned Center Village (CV) and Residential-14 (R-14). The Comprehensive Plan
designation is Center Village. To the north is multi-family residential (R-14 and CV zones). To the
east are multi-family residential and commercial uses (CV zone). To the south is Sunset
Boulevard/SR 900. To the west is multi-family residential (R-10 and CV zone). The proposal
involves multi-family, commercial, institutional and public uses.
4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for all water and sewer
service. The proposal is a conceptual Master Site Plan for a multi-phase development over
a large subarea. This topic will be reviewed with detailed Site Plan Review for each phase.
A conceptual water main improvements layout for the proposed developments identified
has been developed (Staff Report Exhibit 13). The diagram updates the information
contained in the Final EIS as amended in the NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation/Addendum, but
is intended to meet City standards as described in the Final EIS.
The City will require 12-inch water mains in all new public streets (Harrington Ave NE,
Sunset Lane NE, NE 10th Street, Glennwood Ave NE) to provide the estimated fire flow
demand ranging from 3,000 gpm to 4,000 gpm based on the City Fire Prevention’s review
of various pre-application submittals. A developer’s extension of the section of 12-inch
water main in Sunset Blvd NE/SR 900 will be required to be a looped water system
because the estimated fire flow demand for the proposed development on Site H and on
Site I is above 2,500 gpm.
The location of the new water main in SR 900 west of Harrington will be evaluated as part
of the pre-design/design of the roadway improvements projects, and consider the need to
accommodate existing and future public and private utilities, rockery/retaining walls,
street trees, etc.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
Sites plans will be required to show the location of the existing sewer system in order to
determine the potential re-use of existing sewer (conditioned on lining the existing sewer
mains and manholes) provided the location does not interfere with the ultimate
roadway/building alignments.
Where a sewer main exists in the current Harrington Ave NE alignment that will become
the new park it will be retained; the City will eliminate manholes where needed and where
feasible. The park connection is likely to occur at NE 10th St, or at the west end, where
new private development may be able to shorten the existing sewer to keep it within the
roadway. Where the section of Glenwood Avenue NE reconnects with Harrington Avenue
NE the sewer main will need to be rerouted.
Approved plans indicate the Library will connect to the existing sewer in NE 10th Street.
B. Fire and Police. 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. Impact fees will be discussed in detail as part of the Site Plan
Review for each phase and assessed at the time of building permit application.
C. Drainage. As with water and sewer, drainage issues related to the individual phases and
improvements will be evaluated at the time of each separate site plan approval. However,
the regional stormwater facility will be constructed in advance of the future park. The
estimated time for the stormwater facility completion is June 30, 2015. The regional
stormwater facility in Sunset Park will address flow control for Sunset Blvd NE/SR 900
roadway water quality treatment. The regional facility in the Park is designed for SR 900
and is not designed to receive any stormwater from the Master Plan area, and per the grant
funding, this site cannot be used for mitigation.
D. Parks/Open Space. The proposed development will impact the Parks and Recreation
system. These impacts will be mitigated by payment of the Parks Impact Fee for each
multi-family unit. The Applicant is a new 3.2 acre park. Sunset Park has been increased in
size compared to prior conceptual plans studied in the FEIS, April 2011. Proposed park
components include a performance space, a child-friendly water feature, play area, picnic
area, restroom building, fitness equipment, walking loop, integration of art, passive open
space, plazas, and rain gardens.
Both the park and the regional storm water facility require maintenance access and
load/unload areas. The maintenance access and load/unload zone will be located on 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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
north side of the future park along (extended) NE 10th St. An internal walkway system
will be incorporated into the park however a perimeter park sidewalk will not be included.
Common open space will be provided by the individual developments and review as part
of the site plan review process for each development. Common use spaces could have
views to the west towards Lake Washington and the Olympic Mountains for all residents
in proposed 5-6 story buildings. Private open space would most likely be provided through
private decks or small yards.
E. Transportation. Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service
standards will not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees
will be assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts.
A proposed loop road along Sunset Lane NE will encircle the proposed park. Along the
library and mixed-use building space, the lane could be specially paved and serve as a
plaza for special events. The width of this roadway is 49 feet. Each phase will be
responsible for their proportionate share of frontage improvements (RMC 4-6-060). The
City is considering a SAD/LID for the improvement of the Sunset Lane NE loop
depending on the timing of funding and construction for each individual phase.
The Sunset Area “green connections” would be implemented per the Sunset Area Surface
Water Master Plan. One of these facilities is currently under construction on Harrington
Avenue NE. The City is considering street reclassifications and two new street sections for
roads that have 60-foot rights of way presently (Staff Report Exhibit 12): Green Collector
and Neighborhood Collector. The 60 foot right of way is consistent with the “Green
Connections” cross section in the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan (Staff Report
Exhibit 14). However, the Green Connections can only be implemented in some locations
and therefore a 60 foot cross-section for a Neighborhood Collector is also proposed.
Traffic impact fees for the individual phases will be reviewed at the time of detailed Site
Plan Review for each phase would be based on square footage of the building (not
including parking garage) and the number of residential units. Fees will be assessed at the
time of building permit application.
The transportation analysis in the NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum indicated
relatively little difference between the revised Master Plan and previously reviewed
alternatives in terms of traffic (Staff Report Exhibit 2).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
F. Schools. The assessment of School Impacts and fees will occur during the individual site
plan review phase of each proposed improvement. The project will replace some existing
public housing units. School impact fees will be assessed only on net new units.
G. Parking. Compliance with parking standards will be reviewed during specific Site Plan
Reviews for each phase. In general, the majority of parking spaces for the residential
components will be accommodated primarily in below grade and partially below grade
parking levels. Most of the proposed parking counts for individual sites are within the
allowable range determined by RMC 4-4-080, except for Site 9/10, which needs an
additional 6 parking spaces to meet the required minimum number of parking spaces.
However, because the other sites propose parking spaces well over the required minimum
number, there could be adequate parking for the Master Site Plan as a whole. A Joint
Parking Agreement could be developed prior to future site plan approval addressing any
shared parking arrangements, provided parking is within 750 feet of the intended site
(RMC 4-4-080(E)(3)).
H. Bicycle Stalls. Required bicycle parking will be addressed during site plan review for the
individual phases.
I. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The Master Plan proposes a loop road system
that creates a more logical and seamless road pattern than exists today. Pedestrian
connections from the street to the buildings will be provided. A complete streets vision
has been proposed for the area and would serve to guide improvements to streets within
the area. A condition of approval will require all phases included in the Master Site Plan
to comply with the Sunset Area Street Classification Map (Staff Report Exhibit 12).
J. Pedestrian Circulation. A pedestrian circulation system is proposed throughout the project
site which connects all opens space and parking areas spaces. Pedestrian circulation will
be addressed for each improvement phase at the time of individual site plan approval.
K. Landscaping. Landscaping in public spaces and on building sites will be employed to
provide transitions between developments and enhance the overall subarea and individual
projects’ appearance. This topic will be more specifically reviewed during Site Plan
Review for each phase.
L. Refuse Enclosure. Compliance with refuse and recycle standards will be reviewed during
specific Site Plan Reviews for each phase.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
M. Building Facade Modulation. The individual proposals will include a variety of building
articulations and modulations in order to break down the scale and massing of the
structures.
5. Adverse Impacts. The NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was
issued on April 1, 2011. The City completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in May 2011. The City also completed Planned Action
Ordinance (#5610) in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The changes to
the development proposal to add more units and height and to address street standards require a
NEPA Reevaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD’s) NEPA regulations, demonstrating that the original conclusions of the FEIS
remain valid. SEPA also provides a process, using an Addendum to the prior FEIS where new
information or analysis does not substantially change prior conclusions about impacts (WAC 197-11-
706). A Reevaluation, consistent with applicable National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations and a SEPA addendum, was prepared to evaluate the proposed changes to the Master Site
Plan. The Reevaluation and Addendum (December 8, 2014) concluded there are no new or different
impacts resulting from the change and the conclusions of the FEIS are still valid.
Beyond those impacts contemplated in the FEIS, ROD, Planned Action Ordinance and NEPA
Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum, there are no additional significant adverse impacts associated
with the project. Few adverse impacts related to the Master Site Plan revision are anticipated.
Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. There are no critical
areas on site. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
A. Increased Density. Many sites in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area propose higher
densities above the maximum density currently allowed in their associated zone. Viewed
in context of the overall Sunset Terrace Site, which since 2011 has been planned
comprehensively as a coordinated mixed use redevelopment project with park amenities,
the density would equal about 65 dwelling units per acre (du/acre), less than the 80 du/acre
maximum allowed in the Center Village zone.
Site D is proposed for 106.8 du/acre, well above the maximum density allowed in the CV
zone. Colpitts Buildings A (118.2 du/acre), B (166.0 du/acre), and C (148.3 due/acre) are
each proposed to exceed the 80 du/acre determined by the size of their individual sites.
Staff suggest given the Public Park will not be developed with residential units there are
opportunities to transfer underutilized density from the park to the proposed Colpitts
Buildings A, B, and C. The City has determined a density transfer agreement would be the
most appropriate mechanism to transfer the unused density from the park to the
redevelopment sites.
City Staff have been working with Colpitts in order to develop a methodology and
framework for the needed density transfer including the cost per additional unit and how
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
the funds obtained will be allocated. A condition of approval will require the City and
Colpitts to execute a Development/Density Transfer Agreement prior to detailed Site Plan
Review approval for any phase of development which intends to utilize unused residential
density from the proposed park acreage.
The RHA Sunset Terrace Apartments/Site D would also exceed the density determined by
the size of its anticipated lot acreage. However, RHA Sunset Terrace Apartments would
be likely be utilizing unused density from other RHA owned properties (Sunset Court
Park, Sunset Park East PIHA). Therefore a density transfer agreement is not needed in this
case.
B. Increased Height. The Master Site Plan would introduce building heights of 5-6 stories
along Sunset Blvd NE and along the south portion of the Sunset Lane NE loop, which
would exceed the current maximum height allowed by zoning (Staff Report Exhibit 15).
According to the Staff Report, the requested building height limits are consistent with the
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Plan. As proposed, Colpitts Buildings A, B, C (Sites H, I,
J) and the Sunset Terrace Apartments (Site D) are inconsistent with maximum height
limits of the CV zone, provided only residential uses are proposed. Site D would have
heights greater than existing development to the west. The height variance under the
conditional use permit was requested in order to allow for a larger Sunset Park while still
creating viable developments. There is capacity to add commercial uses in the Master Plan
should future applicants so choose. Should the proposals be revised to include commercial
uses in some cases no height modification would be needed.
The proposed park space would provide a substantial amenity to area residents and reduce
the overall visual impression of height and bulk from viewers located further northward of
the loop road. For park users, who would be closer to the proposed buildings, increased
height could create a perception for park users of being surrounded by buildings looming
over them, depending on design treatments. Also, there would be increased height and
bulk from the perspective of pedestrians on Sunset Blvd NE. Thus small adjustments to
reduce height and bulk related to the increased height and intensity of the structures would
reduce impacts. Current city design standards address building modulation and roofline
variation and are recommended for application in the NEPA Reevaluation/SEPA
Addendum (Exhibit 2).
Increased height at the southern end of the Redevelopment Area would have the potential
to slightly increase the length of shadows cast on the interior park to the north. However,
reconfiguration of the park to increase its size as part of the updated Master Site Plan
process would ameliorate this to some degree, and the application of design standards
would further reduce shading impacts from increased building heights.
The “rim” of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment area is particularly well suited to the
greater density/height proposed as it is immediately adjacent to Sunset Blvd NE, a major
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 13
CAO VARIANCE - 13
arterial and state highway capable of accommodating the traffic generated by the proposed
project.
The proposed development would be among the taller developments in the vicinity until
such time as other properties will be redeveloped to meet the more intensive vision of the
CV zone. The proposed project is compatible with the scale and character of the existing
and planned neighborhood. When the proposed height is considered in the context of the
entire redevelopment plan area, the average height proposed for development is well
below 60-feet3. The additional height allows for the achievement of the proposed units and
reflects the greater size of the park and redistribution of units to maximize the park site.
Sunset Terrace has been identified as an area where it is desirable to develop residential
uses to a density greater than currently exists, which requires either less public open space
or higher buildings.
Compliance with the height standards for all other structures will be reviewed during
specific Site Plan Reviews for each phase.
C. Increased Lot Coverage. As with the increased density and height, the proposal
collectively meets the lot coverage requirements. However, Sites D, H/K, I and J exceed
the standard individually. If these lots are aggregated with the increased park acreage, lot
coverage requirements are met. Staff notes this is consistent with the overall Master Plan
approach. The remaining lots all appear to be able to meet lot coverage requirements
through the use of structured parking, a topic which will be reassessed during individual
site plan review as each phase progresses.
D. Reduced Setbacks. The 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan was designed to account for
reduced setbacks along Sunset Lane NE. The plan assumes no front yard setbacks in this
location. Lot depths are 125 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER
site plan for Lots 9/10, and 130 feet west of Harrington Avenue NE. In all areas besides
along the redesigned Sunset Lane NE (SR 900), lot depths are sufficient to allow for
sufficient depths of buildings with underbuilding parking and account for odd geometries.
This being said, there should be room for a small setback from Sunset Lane NE.
Compliance with setback standards will be reviewed during specific Site Plan Reviews for
all other properties.
E. Privacy and Noise. Noise impacts are adequately mitigated. Staff anticipates most of the
noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The Master Site
Plan includes an arrangement of buildings around the Sunset Park to reduce noise.
3 The maximum height allowable without a hearing examiner approved conditional use permit is 50 feet (RMC 4 -2-
120(C)(16)).
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 14
CAO VARIANCE - 14
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. Master Site Plan Approvals for the overall plan and Conditional Use Permit
approvals are each Type III decisions determined by the hearing examiner (RMC 4-8-080(G)). The
aforementioned permits have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
each be processed under “the highest-number procedure.” As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G)
grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to
closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Center Village (CV) and
Residential-14 (R-14). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Center Village.
3. Review Criteria. Master Site Plan Review is an optional process in the CV and R-14 zones
(RMC 4-9-200(B)(1)). To accommodate the localized change in density, the City has requested
Master Site Plan review. The City has requested a Conditional Use Permit to increase the height limit
and lot coverage requirements and reduce setbacks in the areas proposed for additional units. The
City has also requested a change in the vesting timeline. Master Site Plan review standards are
governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Conditional Use Permits are governed by RMC 4-9-030. All
applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
Master Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and
policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design
Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-
3-100.
4. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning
regulations and design guidelines and the Sunset Planned Action area (Staff Report Exhibit 10) as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 15
CAO VARIANCE - 15
outlined in Findings 20(a)-(l) of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in
full, including the findings and conclusions.
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.
5. The design as revised would mass more density in one portion of the subarea than in others
and increase the bulk of structures in that area. However, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the
increased density and scale of the structures are appropriate along Sunset Boulevard NE because of
the heavy regional traffic in that area. The buildings will be modulated and designed to provide
relief to pedestrians walking near them. The most important offset, though, is the increased size of
the public park afforded by the proposed building massing and density. The design also allows for
improved vehicular circulation throughout the entire subarea by creating a new loop road. This
decision is a Master Plan Review and therefore is meant to be conceptual in nature. It represents a
decade long development of multiple phases of mixed use, mixed income development by public
and private entities. As such, issues related to internal circulation, loading and storage areas,
landscaping and lighting will be dealt with during the individual site plan review stages as each
phase progresses. There are presently no views of attractive natural features. As proposed, the
impacts to surrounding properties created by the revised design are mitigated.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 16
CAO VARIANCE - 16
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.
6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the arrangement of buildings around Sunset Park will
block noise from SR 900. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing
and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction
without unreasonably interfering with the objectives of the facility or creating a detrimental impact
to the proposed park. The scale of the facility will not create any adverse impacts as discussed and is
compatible with vehicle and pedestrian circulation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. In
addition, there is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is
incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. Impervious surfaces are
significantly less than those authorized by applicable zoning regulations and are within the range
anticipated in the FEIS for the original Master Plan.
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;
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 17
CAO VARIANCE - 17
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.
7. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above
for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(I) and (J).
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.
8. The proposal provides for open space that serves as distinctive project focal points and also
provides for recreation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(N). A primary feature of the revised
proposal is an expanded public park which will serve as a visual and social focal point for the
neighborhood.
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.
9. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
10. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no critical areas on site. As determined in Finding
of Fact No. 4, the drainage system is designed to accommodate pedestrian friendly greenscape and
sidewalks while improving the existing regional stormwater quality.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
11. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.
4.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 18
CAO VARIANCE - 18
12. The Master Plan includes a detailed sequencing plan for development phases over a ten year
timeframe. Finding 20L of the Staff Report is adopted here by reference as if set forth in full.
Conditional Use
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the
zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
13. The Master Plan promotes a mixed use redevelopment with open space and civic amenities.
The Master Plan would advance the City’s Center Village concept in the Comprehensive Plan and
zoning code. It would serve as an incentive for other redevelopment opportunities near the study area.
Anticipated growth would help the City meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. It would also
serve to fulfill the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. The proposal is consistent with
applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines and
the Sunset Planned Action area (Staff Report Exhibit 10) as outlined in Findings 20(a)-(l) of the staff
report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and
conclusions.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
14. As described above in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed location is suitable for the proposed
use. The overall Sunset Terrace Site has been planned comprehensively as a coordinated mixed use
redevelopment project with park amenities at an overall density that is less than the allowed
maximum in the CV zone while providing public amenities including affordable housing, a new
library and a public park. Given these factors the criterion is met.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
15. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 there are no adverse impacts associated with the
proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. The
proposed development would be among the taller developments in the vicinity, though it is essentially
the first coordinated development to implement the more intensive vision of the CV zone. The
proposed project is compatible with the scale and character of the existing and planned neighborhood.
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 19
CAO VARIANCE - 19
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
16. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood since it does not involve any significant adverse aesthetic impacts and
allows for the expansion of the proposed Sunset Park, creates a new loop road to improve access and
creates a gateway along SR 900.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
17. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, most parking is proposed to be in structures. Parking will
be reviewed during the phased build out at the time of each individual phase’s site plan review. At
this stage, the overall project appears to provide adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
18. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the local roadway network will be improved through
the redesigned Sunset Boulevard, the new loop road and the reconstructed Harrington Road. The
project will not have a significant impact on the general traffic in the vicinity and provides for
adequate and safe pedestrian circulation. The criterion is met.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
19. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, noise and light impacts will be addressed during
individual site plan reviews for each implementing project. Lighting will comply with City
regulations which require lights to be directed inwards and prohibited light trespass. The building
design along Sunset Boulevard should shield park users from regional traffic noise from SR 900.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
20. The criterion is met for the reasons discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4K under aesthetic
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 20
CAO VARIANCE - 20
Time Limits
RMC 4-8-100(J): Expiration of Large Scale or Phased Projects: For large scale or phased
development projects, the Examiner may at the time of approval or recommendation set forth time
limits for expiration which exceed those prescribed in this Section for such extended time limits as
are justified by the record of the action.
21. The applicants have requested an extended expiration timeline for the project because of its
scale and complexity. They have also indicated much of the public infrastructure and development
is grant dependent. The applicants have requested a 10 year expiration limit. This request is granted.
DECISION
The Master Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Renton Sunset Redevelopment Master Site
Plan, File No. LUA14-001475, SA-M, CU-P as depicted in Exhibit 3 of the Staff Report, are
approved subject to the following conditions.
1. A Development/Density Transfer Agreement shall be executed by the City and Colpitts prior
to detailed Site Plan Review approval for any phase of development which intends to utilize
unused residential density from the proposed park acreage.
2. All phases included in the Master Site Plan shall comply with the Sunset Area Street
Classification Map, (Staff Report Exhibit 12). Conceptual frontage improvements shall be
submitted at the time of Site Plan Review for each phase and are subject to approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer.
3. Prior to beginning construction, each individual project phase or improvement shall provide
information to surrounding property owners about timelines, extent of construction, and
contact information.
4. This decision is effective until January 14, 2025.
DATED this 14th day of January, 2015.
__________________________
Emily Terrell
City of Renton
Hearing Examiner Pro Tem
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
SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET
MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 21
CAO VARIANCE - 21
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision to
be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th
floor, (425) 430-6510.
The “date of the examiner’s decision” for purposes of appeal and reconsideration is considered to
be three days after mailing, which is _______________. The appeal and reconsideration deadline
is due fourteen days after the “date of the examiner’s decision”, which is _________________.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
DEPARTMENTOFCOMMUNITYANDECONOMICDEVELOPMENT—RentonADMINISTRATIVESITEDEVELOPMENTPLANREPORT&DECISIONREPORTDATE:June20,2016ProjectName:RentonSunsetTerraceRedevelopment(2016Modification)Owner/Applicant:CityofRenton;RentonHousingAuthority;SunsetTerraceDevelopmentLLCFileNumber:LUA14-001475,MODProjectManager:RocaleTimmons,SeniorPlannerProjectSummary:TheapplicantisrequestingaMinorSitePlanModificationforamendmentstotheapprovedSunsetPlannedActionAreaandRentonSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentMasterSitePlan(LUA1O-052andLUA14-001475)inordertoincludeanadditionalfiveparcelsandtoswapresidentialunitsbetweentwomasterplannedsites.Noadditionalresidentialunitsarebeingproposed.TherevisedproposalrequiresaNEPAReevaluation,pursuanttoSection58.47ofUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment’s(HUD’s)NEPAregulations,demonstratingthattheoriginalconclusionsoftheFEISremainvalid.SEPAalsoprovidesaprocess,usinganAddendumtothepriorFEISwherenewinformationoranalysisdoesnotsubstantiallychangepriorconclusionsaboutimpacts(WAC197-11-706).Proposedresidentiallandincludesapartmentsandattachedtownhomesthataregenerallybetweentwoandfourstoriesinheight,extendingtofiveandsixstoriesalongSR900.Proposedcommercialspacewouldequalbetween19,500-59,000squarefeet.ProjectLocation:LocatedinnortheastRenton,theSunsetTerracecommunityisgenerallyboundedbySunsetBlvdNEonthesouththatformsa“U-shaped”border,GlenwoodAvenueNEandNE10thStreetonthenorth;HarringtonAvenueNEbisectsthearea.SiteArea:15.28acresProjectLocationMap
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page2of8A.EXHIBITS:Exhibit1:ERCReport,datedJune13,2016Exhibit2:RentonSunsetAreaReevaluationandAddendum,datedMay2016Exhibit3:DraftNEPA/SEPAEISExhibit4:FinalEIS(2011)Exhibit5:RecordofDecision(2014)Exhibit6:PlannedActionOrdinance(2014)Exhibit7:RevisedMitigationMeasures(2014)Exhibit8:TrafficAnalysis—SunsetMasterPlan(2014)Exhibit9:MasterSitePlan(2016)Exhibit10:MasterSitePlan(2014)Exhibit11:CulturalResourceAssessment(2016)Exhibit12:TrafficAnalysis—SunsetCourt(2016)Exhibit13:HEXDecision—RentonSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentMasterSitePlan—January14,2015Exhibit14:AdministrativeSitePlanReport&Decision—June20,2016B.GENERALINFORMATION:CityofRenton1.Owner(s)ofRecord:RentonHousingAuthoritySunsetTerraceDevelopmentLLC2.ComprehensivePlanLandUseDesignation:CenterVillage(CV)3.ZoningClassification:CenterVillage(CV)andResidential-14(R-14)4.ExistingSiteUse:Multi-FamilyResidential,PublicLibrary,Vacant5.NeighborhoodCharacteristics:a.North:Multi-FamilyResidential(R-14andCVzone)b.East:Multi-FamilyResidentialandCommercial(CVzone)c.South:SunsetBlvdNE/SR900d.West:Multi-FamilyResidential(R-10andCVzone)6.SiteArea:16.88acresC.HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND:ActionLandUseFileNo.OrdinanceNo.DateComprehensivePlanN/A509911/01/2004ZoningN/A510011/01/2004AnnexationN/A179109/09/1959SunsetLaneStreetVacationVAC13-001569309/09/2013LLALUA3-001114N/A10/10/2013SunsetAreaPlannedActionLUA1O-052N/A06/06/2011EISHighlandsLibraryLUA13-001720N/A03/04/2014SitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONReportofJune20,2016SunsetLLALUA6-000132N/A04/28/2016SunsetCourtLUA16-000068N/ATBDD.PUBLICSERVICES:1.ExistingUtilitiesa.Water:WaterservicewouldbeprovidedbytheCityofRenton.b.Sewer:SewerservicewouldbeprovidedbytheCityofRenton.c.Surface/StormWater:TherearestormdrainageimprovementsinNE10thSt,SunsetLaneNEandHarringtonAveNE.2.Streets:Therearepartialstreetimprovementsalongthefrontagesofthesite.3.FireProtection:CityofRentonFireDepartmentE.APPLICABLESECTIONSOFTHERENTONMUNICIPALCODE:1.Chapter2LandUseDistrictsa.Section4-2-020:PurposeandIntentofZoningDistrictsb.Section4-2-070:ZoningUseTablec.Section4-2-11OA:ResidentialDevelopmentStandardsd.Section4-2-120A:CommercialDevelopmentStandards2.Chapter3EnvironmentalRegulationsa.Section4-3-100:UrbanDesignRegulations3.Chapter4PropertyDevelopmentStandards4.Chapter6StreetsandUtilityStandards5.Chapter9ProceduresandReviewCriteriaa.Section4-9-200:SitePlanReview6.Chapter11DefinitionsF.ADMINSTRATIVESITEPLANREVIEWFINDINGSOFFACT:1.TheCityofRenton,alongwiththeRentonHousingAuthority(RHA),KingCountyLibrarySystem,andColpittsDevelopment,andcommunitypartners,isredevelopingtheSunsetTerracepublichousingcommunity,anapproximately16-acresitewithinthelargerSunsetAreaCommunityNeighborhoodinnortheastRenton.2.Intotal,722dwellingunitswereapprovedonsitesAthrough0andX.Approximately675oftheseunitswereapprovedonMasterPlansitesCthrough0(Exhibit13).Additionally,therewasarangeofcommercialspaceapprovedwithalowendof19,500squarefeetandanupperrangeof59,000squarefeet.AdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODPage3of8SitePlanReport
3.TheRentonSunsetTerraceRedevelopmenttofourconditionsofapproval(Exhibit12):2)AllphasesincludedintheMasterSiteClassificationMap,(StaffReportExhibitsubmittedatthetimeofSitePlanReviewCurrentPlanningProjectManagerandPlanCityandColpittspriortowhichintendstoutilizePlanshallcomplywiththeSunsetAreaStreet12).ConceptualfrontageimprovementsshallbeforeachphaseandaresubjecttoapprovalbytheReviewer.3)Priortobeginningconstruction,eachindividualprojectphaseorimprovementshallprovideinformationtosurroundingpropertyownersabouttimelines,extentofconstruction,andcontactinformation.4)ThisdecisioniseffectiveuntilJanuary14,2025.4.TherequestedmodificationtotheapprovedSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentMasterSitePlanincludesthefollowingchanges:•ShiftsevenunitsfromtheSunsetTerraceApartments(SiteD)totheSunsetParkEast(Piha)Townhomes&Apts(a.k.a.Suncrest)property(SiteG);and•DevelopreplacementhousingfortheRHASunsetTerraceRedevelopmentonfiveparcelslocatedoutsidebutabuttingthe2014MasterPlanarea.ThreeparcelswouldbeaddedtotheCityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanRepart&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUAO-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page4of8TotalUnitsProp-ReviewedSiteNameStatusAcresosedinUnitsReevaluationAGlennwoodTownhomesConstructedRHA0.6588BKirklandAvenueTownhomesConstructedRHA0.771818CEdmondsApartmentsMasterSitePlan1.799112DSunsetTerraceApartmentsMasterSitePlan0.514154ESunsetParkWestTownhomesMasterSitePlan0.551010FSunsetCourtTownhomesMasterSitePlan0.881515SunsetParkEast(Piha)GMasterSitePlan1.095657Townhomes&AptsHSunsetTerraceDev.BuildingAMasterSitePlan0.56111117ISunsetTerraceDev.BuildingBMasterSitePlan1.18188196JSunsetTerraceDev.BuildingCMasterSitePlan0.74104110KRentonHighlandsLibraryMasterSitePlan0.43LRegionalStormwaterFacilityMasterSitePlanSeeMMSunsetParkMasterSitePlan3.2NSunsetLaneLoopImprovementsMasterSitePlan1.41NE10thStreetExtension0MasterSitePlan0.2ImprovementsXLibrarySite(2013)FutureDevelopment1.412525Totals15.28675722MasterSitePlanwasapprovedonJanuary14,2015subject1)ADevelopment/DensityTransferAgreementshallbeexecutedbythedetailedSitePlanReviewapprovalforanyphaseofdevelopmentunusedresidentialdensityfromtheproposedparkacreage.SitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016PageSof8SunsetCourtParksite(SiteF)anddevelopedwith50apartmentsandtownhomes(LUA16-000068),andtwoparcelswouldbeaddedtopropertiesnorthofthe“looproad”intheSunsetParkWestTownhomes(a.k.a.HarringtonPark)developmentresultingin19townhomes(SiteE).TotalUnitsTotalUnits.Acres:ReviewedinReviewedinSiteNameStatusAcres:20162014Reevaluation:Reevaluation:20142016AGlennwoodTownhomesConstructedRHA0.6580.658BKirklandAvenueIownhomesConstructedRHA0.77180.7718CEdmondsApartmentsPartofMasterSitePlan1.701121.7068DSunsetTerraceApartmentsPartofMasterSitePlan0.51540.5147ESunsetParkWestTownhomes2014/HarringtonPark2016PartofMasterSitePlan,Amended0.55101.0619FSunsetCourtTownhomes2014/SunsetCourtApartments2016PartofMasterSitePlan,Amended0.88151.95500SunsetParkEast(Piha)Townhomes&Apts2014/SuncrestHomes2016PartofMasterSitePlan1.09571.0964HSunsetTerraceDcv.BuildingAPartofMasterSitePlan0.091170.99117ISunsetTerraceDcv.BuildingBPartofMasterSitePlan1.181961.18196JSunsetTerraceDec.BuildingCPartofMasterSitePlan0.741100.74110KRentonHighlandsLibraryPartofMasterSitePlanSeeHSeeHCRegionalStormwaterFacilityPartofMasterSitePlanSeeMSeeMMSunsetParkPartofMasterSitePlan3.203.2NSunsetLaneLoopimprovementsPartofMasterSitePlan1.411.410NE10thStreetEutensionImprovementsPartofMasterSitePlan0.200.20XLibrurySite(2013)FutureDevelopment1.41251.4125TotalMasterPlanSites12.4467114.04671Total-AllSites15.287221B.88722=MasterPlanProperties5.TheCityhaspreparedanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)fortheSunsetArea(Exhibit4),supplementedbyaddenda,thataddressestheprobablesignificantenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththelocation,type,andamountofdevelopmentanticipatedinthePlannedActionarea.6.TheCityadoptedaPlannedActionOrdinance5610onJune13,2011,andsubsequentlyreplaceditwithOrdinance5740onDecember8,2014(Exhibit6)toreflectpreparationofaMasterPlanfortheRentonSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentareawithinthelargerPlannedActionAreaandtoreflectintegrationofaSEPAReevaluationAlternativein2014(Exhibit10).7.WiththecurrentlyproposedrevisionstotheMasterPlanandadditionoftheabuttingparcels,therewouldbenonetincreaseinthetotalnumberofhousingunitsintheMasterPlanareaorintheSunsetAreaneighborhood.However,consistentwiththeflexibilityallowedbytheadoptedMasterPlan,someunitswouldberedistributed.8.ThepropertyislocatedwithintheCenterVillage(CV)landusedesignationandtheCenterVillage(CV)andResidential-14du/aczoningclassifications.9.ThesiteislocatedwithinZone2oftheAquiferprotectionArea.Therearenoothercriticalareaslocatedonsite.10.ThePlanningDivisionoftheCityofRentonacceptedtheabovemasterapplicationforreviewonJanuary29,2016,determineditcompleteonFebruary19,2016andcommencedatwoweekpubliccommentperiod.11.Duringstaff’sreviewitwasdeterminedadditionalinformationwasneededinordertoproceedfurther.TheprojectwasplacedonholdonMarch20,2016.TheCityreceivedslightrevisionstotheapplication,theprojectwastakenoffholdonMay27,2016,andasecondcourtesytwo-weekpubliccommentperiodcommencedandwasheldopenuntilJune10,2016.12.Theprojectcomplieswiththe120-dayreviewperiod.13.Noagencyorpubliccommentswerereceived.SitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page6of814.Representativesfromvariouscitydepartmentshavereviewedtheapplicationmaterialstoidentifyandaddressissuesraisedbytheproposeddevelopment.Thesecommentsarecontainedintheofficialfile,andtheessenceofthecommentshavebeenincorporatedintotheappropriatesectionsofthisreportandtheDepartmentalRecommendationattheendofthisreport.15.MinorModification:TheproposalrequiresaMinorModificationtotheapprovedMasterSitePlanapprovedonJanuary14,2015(Exhibit13).ThefollowingtablecontainsprojectelementsintendedtocomplywiththeminormodificationtoapprovedSitePlanscriteria,asoutlinedinRMC4-9-200H.2:TableA:MINORMODIFICATIONTOANAPPROVEDMASTERPLANORSITEPLANMinormodificationsmaybepermittedbyadministrativedetermination.Tobeconsideredaminormodification,theamendmentmustnot:Involvemorethanatenpercent(10%)increaseinareaorscaleofthedevelopmentintheapprovedplan.StaffComment:Withthe2016/currentlyproposedrevisionstotheMasterSitePlanandadditionoftheabuttingparcels,therewouldbenonetincreaseinthetotalnumberof‘housingunitsintheMasterPlanareaorintheSunsetAreaneighborhood.However,consistentwiththeflexibilityallowedbytheadoptedMasterPlan,someunitswouldberedistributed.TheproposeddevelopmentswouldmeetCitystandardsfordensity,height,setbacks,transportationlevelsofservice,connectiontoutilities,andwouldbesubjecttoCityparkingcodes,includingproceduresformodifyingapplicablestandards.Haveasignificantlygreaterimpactontheenvironmentand/orpublicfacilitiesthantheapprovedplan.StaffComment:Mostoftheoriginalcomponentsofthe2014MasterSitePlan(Exhibit10)remainthesameandcontinuetocomplywithSitePlanReviewdecisioncriteria,asoutlinedinRMC4-9-200.E.Theproposedmodificationwouldberequiredtocontinuetodemonstratecompliancewiththoseconditionsissuedaspartoftheoriginalapproval(seeabove,FindingofFact2).Aswiththechangespreviouslyevaluatedin2014,therevisionsproposedtotheMasterSitePlanatthistimerequireaNEPAReevaluationandSEPAAddendum.AReevaluation,consistentwithapplicableNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)regulations,combinedwithaSEPAAddendum,waspreparedtoevaluatetheproposedchangesinCompliantiftheMasterSitePlan.TheReevaluation/Addendum,datedMay,2016,concludedthatconditionoftherewerenonewordifferentimpactsandthattheconclusionsoftheEISarestillvalidapprovalis(Exhibit2).metOnJune6,2016,theCity’sEnvironmentalReviewCommitteedeterminedthatthe2016SunsetTerraceRedevelopmentMasterSitePlanModificationwasconsistentwithboththerangeofplanalternativesthatwereevaluatedintheFSEIS(Exhibit4)andwiththedevelopmentlevelsorparametersasspecifiedintherevised2014PlannedActionOridinance(Exhibit6).However,the2016Re-evaluationandAddendumwouldnecessitateminorrevisionstotheRecordofDecisionandPlannedActionOrdinancetoreflecttherevised(2016)MasterSitePlanpriortoconstruction.Thereforestaffrecommendsaconditionofapprovalrequiringallnecessarychanges,reflectingthe2016MasterSitePlanRevisions,bemadetotheRecordofDecisionandPlannedActionOrdinancepriortothecommencementofconstructiononSitesD,EFandG(SunsetTerraceApartments,SunsetParkWestTownhomes,SunsetCourtPark,andSunsetParkEastTownhomes&SitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page8of8TRANSMITTEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016totheContact/Applicant/Owner:Owners:RentonHousingAuthorityCityofRentonColpittsDevelopmentTRANSMITTEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016tothePartiesofRecord:CoraleeSchutzSharonBarkerHarringtonPlaceCondoManager1100HarringtonAveNE#31115718SEi43dSt716W.MeekerSt#101Renton,WA98056Renton,WA98059Kent.WA98032SandraBowersAlD’AlessandroMatt&CindyGano1135HarringtonAveNEKingCounty1145HarringtonAveNERenton,WA980564015thAye,Ste#500Renton,WA98056Seattle,WA98104TRANSMITTEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016tothefollowing:CE.“Chip”Vincent,CEDAdministratorBrianneBannwarth,DevelopmentEngineeringManagerVanessaDolbee,CurrentPlanningManagerFireMarshalLandUseActionAppeals,RequestforReconsideration,&ExpirationThereviewdecisionswillbecomefinalifthedecisionsarenotappealedwithin14daysofthedecisiondate.MinorModificationtoApprovedSitePlanApprovalAppeal:AppealsoftheadministrativemodificationtoapprovedsiteplanmustbefiledinwritingtotheHearingExamineronorbefore5:00p.m.onJuly5,2016.APPEALS:Anappealofthedecision(s)mustbefiledwithinthe14-dayappealperiod(RCW43.21.C.075(3);WAC197-11-680).RentonMunicipalCodeSection4-8-110governsappealstotheHearingExaminer.Appealsmustbefiledinwritingtogetherwiththe$250.00applicationfeetoHearingExaminer,CityofRenton,1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057.AdditionalinformationregardingtheappealprocessmaybeobtainedfromtheCityClerk’sOffice,RentonCityHall-7thFloor,(425)430-6510.RECONSIDERATION:Within14daysofthedecisiondate,anypartymayrequestthatadecisionbereopenedbytheAdministrator(Decision-maker).TheAdministrator(Decision-maker)maymodifyhisdecisionifmaterialevidencenotreadilydiscoverablepriortotheoriginaldecisionisfoundorifhefindstherewasmisrepresentationoffact.Afterreviewofthereconsiderationrequest,iftheAdministrator(Decision-maker)findssufficientevidencetoamendtheoriginaldecision,therewillbenofurtherextensionoftheappealperiod.Anypersonwishingtotakefurtheractionmustfileaformalappealwithinthe14-dayappealtimeframe.EXPIRATIONPERIOD:TheAdministrativeSiteDevelopmentPlanReviewdecisionwillexpiretwo(2)yearsfromthedateofdecisionortheexpirationoftheMasterSitePlanwhichevercomesfirst.THEAPPEARANCEOFFAIRNESSDOCTRINE:providesthatnoexparte(privateone-on-one)communicationsmayoccurconcerningthelandusedecision.TheDoctrineappliesnotonlytotheinitialdecision,buttoAppealstotheHearingExamineraswell.Allcommunicationsafterthedecision/approvaldatemustbemadeinwritingthroughtheHearingExaminer.Allcommunicationsarepublicrecordandthispermitsallinterestedpartiestoknowthecontentsofthecommunicationandwouldallowthemtoopenlyrebuttheevidenceinwriting.AnyviolationofthisdoctrinecouldresultintheinvalidationoftheappealbytheCourt.SitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page7of8Apartmentsrespectively).ItshouldbenotedstaffiscurrentlyprocessingamendmentstotheSunsetAreaPlannedActionOrdinance,pursuanttoSEPA.TheCityheldacommunitymeeting,asrequired,onJune6,2016forproposedamendmentstothePlannedActionOrdinance.TheCityCouncilwillholdapublichearingonJuly11,2016regardingnewamendmentstothePlannedActioninordertointegratethe2016ReevaluationAlternative,outlinedintheNEPAReevaluationandSEPAAddendum(Exhibit2).ItisanticipatedtherevisedPlannedActionOrdinance,andRecordofDecision,willbeeffectiveand/orinplaceinAugustof2016.Themodificationdoesnotchangetheboundariesoftheoriginallyapprovedplan.StaffComment:All2016MasterPlannedsites(Exhibit9)wereevaluatedinthe2011EISfortheSunsetAreaCommunityPlannedActionArea(Exhibit4).ThreeadditionalparcelsvabuttingSunsetCourtPark(Site“F”,a2011‘swapsite”)areaddedtotheMasterPlan,andtwoadditionalparcelsareaddedtotheRedevelopmentarea(Site“E”).MostoftheMasterPlanSitesbeingreviewedinthisdocumentwerepreviouslyconsideredinthePotentialSunsetRedevelopmentStudyAreaorwereconsidered“swapsites”(wherehousingreplacementcouldoccur).G.CONCLUSIONS:1.TheSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentSitePlanMinorModificationisconsistentwiththeMinorModificationcriteriatoanapprovedSitePlan,ifallconditionsofapprovalaremet.2.Theproposaliscompliantandconsistentwiththeplans,policies,regulationsandapprovalstowhichitisvestedifallconditionsofapprovalaremet.3.Staffdoesnotanticipateanyadverseimpactsonsurroundingpropertiesandusesaslongastheconditionsofapprovalarecompliedwith.4.TheproposeduseisanticipatedtobecompatiblewithexistingandfuturesurroundingusesaspermittedintheCVandR-14zoningclassifications.5.Thereareadequatepublicservicesandfacilitiestoaccommodatetheproposeduse.H.DECISION:TheproposedSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentSitePlanMinorModification,FileNo.LUA14-001475andLUA1O-052,MODisapproved.Theproposalissubjecttothefollowingconditions:1.TheapplicantshalldemonstratecompliancewithallconditionsofapprovalissuedaspartoftheSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentMasterSitePlanDecision,datedJanuary14,2015(Exhibit13).2.Allnecessarychanges,reflectingthe2016MasterSitePlanRevisions,shallbemadetotheRecordofDecisionandPlannedActionOrdinancepriortothecommencementofconstructiononSitesD,E,FandG(SunsetTerraceApartments,SunsetParkWestTownhomes,SunsetCourtPark,andSunsetParkEastTownhomes&Apartmentsrespectively).JenniferHenning,PlanningDirectorDateSitePlanReport
CityofRentonDepartmentofCommunity&EconomicDevelopmentAdministrativeSitePlanReport&DecisionSUNSETTERRACEREDEVELOPMENTMASTERPLANMINORMODIFICATIONLUA1O-052&LUA14-001475,MODReportofJune20,2016Page8of8TRANSM1?TEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016totheContact/Applicant/Owner:Owners:RentonHousingAuthorityCityofRentonColpittsDevelopmentTRANSMuTEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016tothePartiesofRecord:CoraleeSchutzSharonBarkerHarringtonPlaceCondoManager1100HarringtonAveNE#31115718SE;43rdSt716W.MeekerSt#101Renton,WA98056Renton,WA98059Kent,WA98032SandraBowersAlD’AlessandroMatt&CindyGano1135HarringtonAveNEKingCounty1145HarringtonAveNERenton,WA98056401SthAve,Ste#500Renton,WA98056Seattle,WA98104TRANSMIJTEDthisthis20thdayofJune2016tothefollowing:C.E.“Chip”Vincent,CEDAdministratorBrianneBonnworth,DevelopmentEngineeringManagerVanessaDolbee,CurrentPlanningManagerFireMarshalLandUseActionAppeals,RequestforReconsideration,&ExpirationThereviewdecisionswillbecomefinalifthedecisionsarenotappealedwithin14daysofthedecisiondate.MinorModificationtoApprovedSitePlanApprovalAppeal:AppealsoftheadministrativemodificationtoapprovedsiteplanmustbefiledinwritingtotheHearingExamineronorbefore5:00p.m.onJuly5,2016.APPEALS:Anappealofthedecision(s)mustbefiledwithinthe14-dayappealperiod(RCW43.21.C.075(3);WAC197-11-680).RentonMunicipalCodeSection4-8-110governsappealstotheHearingExaminer.Appealsmustbefiledinwritingtogetherwiththe$250.00applicationfeetoHearingExaminer,CityofRenton,1055SouthGradyWay,Renton,WA98057.AdditionalinformationregardingtheappealprocessmaybeobtainedfromtheCityClerk’sOffice,RentonCityHall-7thFloor,(425)430-6510.RECONSIDERATION:Within14daysofthedecisiondate,anypattymayrequestthatadecisionbereopenedbytheAdministrator(Decision-maker).TheAdministrator(Decision-maker)maymodifyhisdecisionifmaterialevidencenotreadilydiscoverablepriortotheoriginaldecisionisfoundorifhefindstherewasmisrepresentationoffact.Afterreviewofthereconsiderationrequest,iftheAdministrator(Decision-maker)findssufficientevidencetoamendtheoriginaldecision,therewillbenofurtherextensionoftheappealperiod.Anypersonwishingtotakefurtheractionmustfileaformalappealwithinthe14-dayappealtimeframe.EXPIRATIONPERIOD:TheAdministrativeSiteDevelopmentPlanReviewdecisionwillexpiretwo(2)yearsfromthedateofdecisionortheexpirationoftheMasterSitePlanwhichevercomesfirst.THEAPPEARANCEOFFAIRNESSDOCTRINE:providesthatnoexparte(privateone-on-one)communicationsmayoccurconcerningthelandusedecision.TheDoctrineappliesnotonlytotheinitialdecision,buttoAppealstotheHearingExamineraswell.Allcommunicationsafterthedecision/approvaldatemustbemadeinwritingthroughtheHearingExaminer.Allcommunicationsarepublicrecordandthispermitsallinterestedpartiestoknowthecontentsofthecommunicationandwouldallowthemtoopenlyrebuttheevidenceinwriting.AnyviolationofthisdoctrinecouldresultintheinvalidationoftheappealbytheCourt.SitePlanReport
EntireDocumentAvailabteUponRequestEXHIBIT3
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUEST)/p.r1i)j-ftyof__enton•Commun;&EconomicDevelopmentEXHIBIT4
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUESTRecordofDecision(Revised)SunsetAreaCommunityPlannedActionEISIntroduction1Background1SummaryofAlternativesConsideredinReachingDecision2PublicInvolvement10CoordinationwithOtherAgencies11FinalElSComments13ClarificationsandCorrections13Attachments13IntroductionTheCouncilonEnvironmentalQuality(CEQ)directstheimplementationoftheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA).CEQrulesrequireagenciestoprepareaRecordofDecision(ROD)afterpreparinganenvironmentalimpactstatement(FIS)(Title40oftheCodeoftheFederalRegisterpart1505.2).ThepurposeofaRODistoexplainwhytheagencyhastakenaparticularcourseofaction.ARODmustincludethefollowingelements:•Anexplanationofdecisiononaproposedaction;•Factorsconsideredinmakingadecision;•Alternativesconsideredandtheenvironmentallypreferredalternative;•Adoptedmitigationmeasuresorreasonswhymitigationmeasureswerenotadopted;and•Amonitoringandenforcementprogramforadoptedmitigationmeasures.ThisRODaddressestheredevelopmentoftheSunsetTerracepublichousingcommunityanditsrelationshiptoneighborhoodgrowthandrevitalization.GrowthinthebroaderplanningstudyareaisnotpartoftheproposaladdressedintheROD,andcouldoccurindependentoftheSunsetTerraceproposal.BackgroundTheCityofRenton(City)istheResponsibleEntity(RE)andleadagencyforNEPApurposes.InaccordancewithspecificstatutoryauthorityandtheU.S.DepartmentofKousingandUrbanDevelopment’s(HUD’s)regulationsat24CodeofFederalRegulations(CFR)part58,theCityisauthorizedtoassumeresponsibilityforenvironmentalreview,decision-making,andactionthatwouldotherwiseapplytoHUDunderNEPA.Additionally,theCityistheproponentofthebroaderPlannedActionfortheSunsetareawhichhashadenvironmentalreviewunderWashingtonStateEnvironmentalPolicyAct(SEPA)(RevisedCodeofWashington[RCWJ43.21C).RecordofDecisionEXHIBIT5May2011;RevisedNovember2014
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUESTCITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTONORDINANCENO.5740ANORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,ESTABLISHINGAPLANNEDACTIONFORTHESUNSETAREAPURSUANTTOTHESTATEENVIRONMENTALPOLICYACT.THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFRENTON,WASHINGTON,DOESORDAINASFOLLOWS:SECTIONI.Findings.TheCouncilfindsasfollows:A.TheCityissubjecttotherequirementsoftheGrowthManagementAct,RCW36.70A(“GMA”)andislocatedwithinanUrbanGrowthArea;B.TheCityhasadoptedaComprehensivePlancomplyingwiththeGMA,andhasamendedtheComprehensivePlantoaddresstransportationimprovementsandcapitalfacilitiesspecifictotheSunsetArea;C.TheCityhasadoptedaCommunityInvestmentStrategy,developmentregulations,anddesignguidelinesspecifictotheSunsetAreawhichwillguidegrowthandrevitalizationofthearea,includingtheSunsetTerracepublichousingproject;D.TheCityhaspreparedanEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)fortheSunsetArea,supplementedbyanaddendum,thataddressestheprobablesignificantenvironmentalimpactsassociatedwiththelocation,type,andamountofdevelopmentanticipatedinthePlannedActionarea;E.ThemitigationmeasuresidentifiedinthePlannedActionEIS,andattachedtothisordinanceasAttachmentB,togetherwithadoptedCitydevelopmentregulations,willEXHIBIT6I
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUESTAttachmentB:SunsetAreaCommunityI’IanneuMcIUflEISMitigationMeasuresTableofContentsIntroductionandPurpose3SEPATerms3GeneralInterpretation3SummaryofProposal,Alternatives,andLandCapacity4ProposalandAlternatives4LandCapacity5Location6MitigationDocument71.Earth82.AirQuality103.WaterResources164.PlantsandAnimals195.Energy216.Noise237.EnvironmentalHealth258.LandUse289.Socloeconomics3010.Housing3211.EnvironmentalJustice3412.Aesthetics3613.Historic/Cultural3914.Transportation4215.ParksandRecreation4616.PublicServices4917.Utilities54AdvisoryNotes59Attachment1:DraftEIS,CulturalResourcesAppendixi,PlanandProceduresforDealingwiththeUnanticipatedDiscovery60Attachment2:Figure3.17-1PotentialSubareaUtilityImprovementsandPhasing62Water63Overview63Edmonds-GlenwoodPhase163NewLibrary63NewMixed-UseBuildingAdjacenttoNewLibrary64RHA’sPihaSite64__EXHIBIT7______________PlannedActionOrdinanceAttachmentB:MitigationDocument
CH2MH1LLSL.EntireDocumentAvailableUponRequestSunsetAreaCommunityPlannedActiTrafficAnalysisResults-May2014RedevelopmentMasterSitePlanAlternativeINTRODUCTIONThismemorandumprovidestrafficanalysisresultsfortheMay2014RedevelopmentMasterSitePlanAlternative,orReevaluationAlternative,oftheSunsetAreaCommunityPlannedAction,andcomparestheseresultswithoperationsforAlternative3andthePreferredAlternativeasdocumentedintheFinalNEPA/SEPAFIS.ComparedtoAlternative3,theReevaluationAlternativeincludesamaximumof90additionalunitsinthePotentialSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentSubarea.These90additionalunitsareshiftedoutoftheNorth,South,andSunsetMixedUseareasofthePlannedActionstudyarea.ThisanalysisfocusesontheintersectionoperationsexpectedasaresultofthisshiftTRIPGENERATIoNANDDISTRIBUTIONTripsgeneratedbyAlternative3andthePreferredAlternativeinthePlannedActionstudyareawereestimatedusingtheCity’sversionofthePSRCregionaltravelforecastingmodelwithappliedfuture-yearproposedlanduses.TheAlternative3trafficvolumes,asanalyzedintheFinalNEPA/SEPAEIS,wereusedasabasetodeveloptheReevaluationAlternativevolumes.Tripsgeneratedbythe90additionalunitswereremovedfromtheNorth,South,andSunsetMixedUseareas,andre-routedtothePotentialSunsetTerraceRedevelopment.Assumingthe90shiftedhousingunitsconsistofmediumtohighdensitylow-riseapartmentdwellings,approximately61trips7wouldbegeneratedduringtheweekdayPMpeakhour.(Source:InstituteofTransportationEngineers,TripGenerationManual,9thEdition,InstituteofTransportationEngineers.)Approximatelyhalfoftheunits(47units)wouldbeshiftedfromtheNorthsubarea,37percent(33units)wouldbeshiftedfromtheSouthsubarea,andtheremaining11percent(10units)wouldcomefromthenortheastendoftheSunsetMixedUsesubarea.TRAFFICANALYSISRESULTSTrafficanalysisresultswerecalculatedforthePMpeakhourfortheyears2015and2030.Ingeneral,futuretrafficpatternsintheReevaluationAlternativewoulddifferslightlyfromboththePreferredAlternativeandAlternative3.ThesewouldbenewtripstothePotentialSunsetTerraceRedevelopmentarea,butshiftedfromotherareasofthePlannedActionneighborhood.1EXHIBIT8
Cu0a)IU)Cu-J—w—<zzw1-1I-.’a)0Cu0L..U)—I’‘3dw1—-I--aa)CoU)K—0=I—zC,.)w
a)U)a)U)G)0Cuci)ci)U)CU)0‘.41—mI-IzzzUEXHIBIT30U)wI—wC’,zDU)z0Ui>.QøI
FULLDOCUMENTAvUPONREQUESTCulturalResourceConsultants,Inc.TECHNICALMEMO1507F-2DATE:September11,2015TO:KevinGiffordBerkConsultingFROM:GlennHartmann,PrincipalInvestigatorRE:CulturalResourcesAssessmentfortheSunsetCourtApartmentsProject,Renton,WATheattachedshortreportformconstitutesourfinalreportfortheabovereferencedproject.Assessmentdidnotidentifyarchaeologicalresourcesthatcouldbeaffectedbythisproject.Fourstructuresbuiltover50yearsagoarelocatedonthesubjectparcels;however,thesedonotmeetminimumcriteriaforeligibilityforstateornationalhistoricregistereligibility.Historicinventoryformsforthestructuresandaninadvertentdiscoveryplanareattached.Pleasecontactthisofficeshouldyouhaveanyquestionsaboutourfindingsandlorrecommendations.197PARFIUWAYSW,SuITE100P0Box10668,BAINBRIDGEISLAND,WA98110PHONE206855-9020-inlo@crcwa.com
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUESTPerteet5055thAvenue5,Suite300Seattle,WA981041.800.615.9900/206.436.0515AllyCommunityDevelopment,LLCTrafficImpactAnalysisSunsetCourtSeptember10,2015/1tJlEXHIBIT12
FULLDOCUMENTAVAILABLEUPONREQUEST12345678BEFORETHEHEARINGEXAMINERFORTHECITYOFRENTON9)RE:RentonSunsetTerrace)10.)FINALDECISIONRedevelopmentMasterSitePlan11)SitePlan,ConditionalUsePermit)12)LUA14-00001475,SA-M,CUP)13_____________________________________________1415SUMMARY16TheCityhasrequestedMasterSitePlanreviewandaConditionalUsePermittomodifytheSunset17TerraceRedevelopmentAreabyadding90additionalresidentialunits,increasinatheheightlimitandlotcoveragerequirementsandreducingsetbacks.TheCityhasalsorequesteãachangeintheisvestingtimeline.TheMasterSitePlanReviewandConditionalUsePermitareapprovedwithconditions.The10yearexpirationrequestisgranted.1920TESTIMONY21RocaleTiinmons,seniorplanner,describedthehistoryoftheprojectandtheprogresstodate.Shedescribedthesitecharacteristicsandtherevisionsbeingrequestedforthisprocess.Ms.Timrnons22statedsince2011,therehavebeensomeentitlementsoflanduses.TheCityanditspartnershave23reevaluatedtheoriginalMasterSitePlansincethe2011approvalsofthePlannedActionOrdinanceandissuanceoftheFEIS.ThepreferredalternativewasAlternative3fromtheFEIS.TheCityandits24partnersarerequestingseveralchangestothepreferredalternativeincludingtheadditionof90moreresidentialunits,increasedbuildingheights,reducedsetbacks,increasedlotcoveragesand25reclassificationoflocalstreets.Inreturn,theCitywillbeabletoexpandtheproposedpublicparkto263.2acres.EXHIBIT13SITEPLAN,CRITICALAREASEXEMPTION,STREETMODWICATION,ANDLOTLINEADJUSTMENT-1
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5813
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NOS. 5610 AND 5740, ADDING FIVE PARCELS AND
REDISTRIBUTING, BUT NOT INCREASING, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING
UNITS IN THE SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND REVISING A
PLANNED ACTION DESIGNATED FOR THE SUNSET AREA PURSUANT TO THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findin s. The Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A ("GMA") and is located within an Urban Growth Area;
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and has
amended the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital
facilities specific to the Sunset Area;
C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development
regulations, and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area, as designated in Attachment A,
which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public
housing redevelopment area identified in Attachment C;
D. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sunset
Area, supplemented by addenda, that addresses the probable significant environmental
impacts associated with the location, type, and amount of development anticipated in the
Planned Action area;
1
SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION
FINAL NEPA/SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • VOLUME 1 • APRIL 2011
Issued by:
City of Renton
NEPA Responsible Entity and
SEPA Lead Agency
Prepared in partnership with:
Renton Housing AuthorityRenton Housing Authority
304 Alaskan Way South, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98104 | p: 206.331.3795 | e: info@thirdplacedesigncoop.com
third place design
co-operative
where architecture meets community
Sunset Oaks
Urban Center Design Overlay District Report: For any projects in an Urban Design District,
please provide a statement addressing how the project meets the requirements of the Urban Center
Design Overlay District. The statement shall address the following:
Our project site is in District D
• Pedestrian building entries
Pedestrian building entries are provided to each building along each street frontage and are provided
with a canopy element to designate the entrance.
• Transition to surrounding development
The larger of the three building is located along the more urban NE 10th Street frontage with a
pedestrian entrance element. As the site transitions to the north, the buildings scale is broken down to
smaller human scale using bays. The roof lines are articulated with the bays to provide rhythm and a
break in the bulk of the building.
• Location of parking, design of surface parking, and/or structure/garage parking
All required parking is provided within the building structure at Building B. Additional surface parking
is provided at the interior of the property, shielded from the street frontage. Ample open, common
space is provided in the interior of the project site and driveways are mitigated by the use of woonerfs,
emphasizing the pedestrian environment over the car.
• Vehicular access
Vehicular access to the site is provided along the north property line via an access drive. The drive can
be entered from either Harrington Avenue NE or Glennwood Avenue NE. To slow traffic, the width of
the drive has been minimized. Access to both the structured parking and surface parking are from the
drive.
• Pedestrian circulation
The pedestrian connections from the sidewalk to the interior of the street are clearly delineated by
breaks in the building massing and separation of the buildings in the east/west direction. Sitelines and
safety were taken into consideration with placement of adjacent residential windows. Pathways within
the parking areas are delineated with a complimentary material (either permeable pavers or
stamped/colored asphalt). Sidewalks along Harrington and Glennwood are 8’ in width per COR
standards.
• Common space
3,000 square feet of multi-purpose open space has been provided in the courtyard for residential
amenity space.
• Landscaping
304 Alaskan Way South, Suite 301 Seattle, WA 98104 | p: 206.331.3795 | e: info@thirdplacedesigncoop.com
third place design
co-operative
where architecture meets community
Planting on site will be drought tolerant with an emphasis on edible varieties. The site is focused on the
pedestrian connections from the right of way to the interior common area through pedestrian portals
and throughway paths. A centralized theme surrounds the retained tree with pervious paving and
retaining walls creating an interesting pedestrian environment. Raised planters are located at the main
entry portal to create scale differentiation.
• Building character and massing, rooflines, and materials
Modulated bays are provided on all street elevations. The bays are approximately 2’7” deep x 10’11
wide x 22’/33’ high. The roof line of the main building is interrupted by the pedestrian element
providing a portal to the courtyard and the retained tree, highlighting it as an important part of the
landscaping elements. The flanking buildings (A&C) have modulated roof lines at each bay as well as
the east and west end elements of the main building. Varied roof lines are created by using shed roofs
to articulate the bays and special programmatic elements. High quality materials are planned such as
metal siding, ceramic tile siding, and/or hardi-plank siding. They materials are used in different
orientations and configurations to create pattern and texture throughout the site.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Page 1 of 3 LUA19-000274
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use
action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for
the land use action.
Planning:
(Contact: Matt Herrera, 425-430-6593, mherrera@rentonwa.gov)
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless
otherwise approved by the Development Services Division.
2. Commercial, multi-family, new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be
restricted to the hours between seven o’clock (7:00) a.m. and eight o’clock (8:00) p.m., Monday through
Friday. Work on Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o’clock (9:00) a.m. and eight
o’clock (8:00) p.m. No work shall be permitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty (30) days of completion of grading work, the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an
appropriate ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where
no further construction work will occur within ninety (90) days. Alternative measures such as mulch,
sodding, or plastic covering as specified in the current King County Surface Water Management Design
Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November 1st and
March 31st of each year. The Development Services Division’s approval of this work is required prior to
final inspection and approval of the permit.
4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required when more than one acre is
being cleared.
5. The applicant may not fill, excavate, stack or store any equipment, dispose of any materials, supplies or
fluids, operate any equipment, install impervious surfaces, or compact the earth in any wa y within the
area defined by the drip line of any tree to be retained.
6. The applicant shall erect and maintain six foot (6') high chain link temporary construction fencing around
the drip lines of all retained trees, or along the perimeter of a stand of ret ained trees. Placards shall be
placed on fencing every fifty feet (50') indicating the words, “NO TRESPASSING – Protected Trees” or on
each side of the fencing if less than fifty feet (50'). Site access to individually protected trees or groups
of trees shall be fenced and signed. Individual trees shall be fenced on four (4) sides. In addition, the
applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees.
7. This permit is shall comply with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The permitted is responsible
for adhering to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007) and
/or your U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit.
Development Engineering:
(Contact: Michael Sippo, 425-430-7298, msippo@rentonwa.gov)
1. See Attached Development Engineering Memo dated December 3, 2019
Fire Authority:
(Contact: Corey Thomas, 425-430-7024, CThomas@RentonRFA.org
1. Fire impact fees are applicable at the rate of $964.53 per multifamily unit. This fee is paid at t ime of
building permit issuance. No charge for parking garage areas.
2. The preliminary fire flow is 3,000 gpm. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within
150-feet and two within 300-feet of each building. One hydrant is required within 50 -feet of all fire
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
Page 2 of 3 LUA19-000274
department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Buildings shall also meet maximum
hydrant spacing of 300-feet on center.
3. Each building shall have a separate fire sprinkler service water main and a separate fire department
connection that is accessible from the city street, not the public alleyway as shown, as it is not wide
enough for fire access.
4. Approved fire sprinkler, standpipe and fire alarm systems are required throughout all the buildings.
Dry standpipes are required in all stairways. Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser
room. Fire alarm system is required to be fully addressable and full detection is required. Separate
plans and permits required by the fire department.
5. Fire department apparatus access roadways are adequately provided by the current existing city
streets.
Technical Services:
(Contact: Amanda Askren, 425-430-7369, aaskren@rentonwa.gov)
1. Technical Services has reviewed the submittal documents and provided no additional comments at this
time.
Community Services:
(Contact: Leslie Betlach, 425-430-6619, lbetlach@rentonwa.gov)
1. Parks impact fee applies per adopted ordinance.
2. Please include a pet relief area on site.
Police:
(Contact: Cyndie Morris, 425-430-7521, cparks@rentonwa.gov)
1. Estimated CFS Annually: 60
2. VULNERABILITY OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
a. Construction Phase
i. Theft from construction sites is common during all building phases. To protect materials,
equipment, and tools it is recommended that all materials and tools be locked up or
removed from the site when not in-use; this is especially true of any copper wiring,
copper fixtures or plumbing pieces in bulk or installed. The site should have security
lighting; construction trailers or storage containers should be completely fenced in with
portable security fencing. This fencing will provide both a physical and psy chological
barrier to prospective criminals and will demonstrate the area is private property.
Construction trailers should be kept locked when not in use and should be fitted with
heavy-duty deadbolts with extended strikeplates. Glass windows in construction trailers
should be shatter-resistant. If onsite toolboxes are utilized, they should be secured to
the ground (or a structure) and locked with heavy-duty padlocks when not in use. “No
Trespassing” signs. These signs will aid police when making contacts with unwanted
individuals on the property if they are observed vandalizing or stealing building
materials. This area of the city becomes quite isolated following commuter hours and
with a large park nearby, this site will definitely attract unwanted attent ion during
development.
b. Completed Complex
i. Each residential unit should have solid core doors, preferably metal or solid wood, with
peepholes. The doors should have heavy-duty deadbolt locks with a minimum 1-½”
throw and installed with 3” wood screws. Any external storage areas should also have
solid wood or metal doors, with deadbolts and latch guards installed.
ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
Page 3 of 3 LUA19-000274
ii. Sliding windows and glass patio doors should have secondary locks installed to restrict
movement. Simply placing a sturdy, fitted dowel into the tr acks may be adequate.
iii. Stairways at the complex should be constructed of lattice, wood or metal railing so that
visibility is possible through them. There should not be solid walls in any stairway that
would limit visibility up and down the stairs, or provide a place for a criminal to hide
while waiting for someone to target. Balcony construction should also be of lattice or
railing – no solid walls, for the same reason.
iv. Security lighting should be installed along sidewalks, in stairways, foyers, and pathways.
Each residential unit should have individual unit numbers clearly posted with numbers
at least 6” in height and of a color contrasting with the building. Unit numbers should
also be illuminated so that they are easily located. This will assist emergency personnel
in locating the correct location for response.
v. Latch guards should be installed on pedestrian doors leading to the outside. Any lever -
handled doorknob located on the outside is discouraged unless accompanied by a
secondary lock (i.e., deadbolt). These are easy to pry/damage to obtain access inside a
building. Where egress might be an issue, bar-releases can be installed to meet Fire
Code requirements. This would include any supply, utility or maintenance rooms.
vi. Any resident storage units should have latch guards and deadbolts installed. Dumpster
locations should be secured within their own housing and well lit. If possible, creating a
dumpster location that can be secured for resident’s use but accessible for waste
management is suggested.
vii. Landscaping should be installed with the objective of allowing visibility from both inside
the buildings and outside. Too much dense landscaping could make residents feel
isolated and will provide criminals with concealment to commit crimes such as burglary
and vandalism.
viii. The parking areas and center courtyard are going to attract quite a bit of attention. The
lack of sightline to the street could make it difficult for passing (foot and vehicle) traffic
to monitor these areas. It would be important to provide security or courtesy patrol for
these areas.
Building:
(Contact: Craig Burnell, 425-430-7290, cburnell@rentonwa.gov)
1. Please be advised that a separation between the garage and abutting units will likely be necessary in
Building B.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 4, 2019
TO: Matthew Herrera, Planner
FROM: Michael Sippo, Civil Plan Reviewer
SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments for Sunset Oaks Apartments
LUA19-000274
I have reviewed the application for the Sunset Oaks Apartments at Error! Reference source not
found. and have the following comments.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is approximately 1.053 acres in size and is rectangular in shape. The site was cleared and
stabilized as a portion of the Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan and construction of the NE 10th
Street Improvements in 2016 and 5 buildings were demolished. A lot -line adjustment (LUA16-
000132) was recorded in 2016 to create the additional right-of-way needed for the NE 10th Street
improvements and the subject site properties were segregated into 3 lots as a portion of the
project. Site topography slopes from northeast to southwest at approximately 5%. The site and
adjacent right-of-way contains approximately 11 trees, 1 of which will be retained during site
construction.
Water Water service is provided by City of Renton. The site is in the Highlands service area in
the 565’ hydraulic pressure zone. The approximate static water pressure is 96 psi at
ground elevation of 342 feet. Static water pressure varies based upon elevation. Below
is a summary of existing water mains located in the vicinity of the site:
a. 12-inch City water main located in Glenwood Ave NE (see Water plan no. W-3875)
that can deliver a maximum total flow capacity of 3,800 gallons per minute (gpm).
b. 12-inch City water main located in NE 10th St (see Water plan no. W-3875) that can
deliver a maximum total flow capacity of 4,900 gallons per minute (gpm).
c. 12-inch City water main located in Harrington Ave NE (see Water plan no. W-3635)
that can deliver a maximum total flow capacity of 4,900 gallons per minute (gpm).
Below is a summary of existing fire hydrants in the vicinity of the site:
a. West of the intersection of NE 10th St and Harrington within the planter bulb-out
adjacent to the southeast corner of the site (COR Facility ID HYD-NE-01324).
b. Northeast corner of the intersection Glennwood Ave and Sunset Lane within the
planter strip (COR Facility ID HYD-NE-00227).
c. Northeast of the site approximately 90’ on the east side of Harrington Ave (COR
Facility ID HYD-NE-00229.
The site is located outside of an Aquifer Protection Area.
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
Sewer Wastewater service is provided by the City of Renton.
a. There is an existing 8-inch concrete (non-reinforced) gravity wastewater main
located in Glennwood Ave NE (see City plan no. S-111414).
b. There is an existing 8-inch concrete (non-reinforced) gravity wastewater main
located in Harrington Ave NE (see City plan no. S-111414).
c. There is a newly installed 12-inch PVC gravity wastewater main located in NE 10th
St (see City plan no. S-387503).
Storm There are existing storm drainage systems in Harrington Ave NE, NE 10th St and
Glennwood Ave NE. The existing property does not contain stormwater facilities. There
are stormwater mains located in Harrington Ave NE, NE 10th St and Glennwood Ave
NE. Runoff from the existing site includes 0 buildings where no stormwater
infrastructure currently exists on-site. Runoff from the site sheet flows southwest into
the street and catch basin in Glennwood Ave NE at the southwest side of the site.
It then flows west and south to NE 10th St.
Streets The subject property is bounded by Glennwood Ave NE to the west, Harrington Ave NE
to the east and Sunset LN NE to the south. The composition of the adjacent streets are
as follows:
a. Glennwood Ave NE is a Residential Street with an existing right of way (ROW) width
of 50' as measured using the King County Assessor’s Map. Glennwood Ave NE
consists of approximately 24’ width of pavement but is otherwise unimproved.
Where Glennwood intersects with NE 10th St, intersection improvements including
bulb-outs, curb/gutter/sidewalk, ADA ramps, planters and utilities were
constructed as a portion of the Sunset Master Site Plan improvements and Sunset
LN NE/NE 10th St roadway improvements.
b. Harrington Ave NE is a Residential Street with an existing right of way (ROW) width
of 60' as measured using the King County Assessor’s Map. Glennwood Ave NE
consists of approximately 30’ width of pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk on
both sides. Where Harrington intersects with NE 10th St, intersection improvements
including bulb-outs, curb/gutter/sidewalk, ADA ramps, planters and utilities were
constructed as a portion of the Sunset Master Site Plan improvements and Sunset
LN NE/NE 10th St roadway improvements.
c. NE 10th St is a Residential Street with an existing right of way (ROW) width of 50'
as measured using the King County Assessor’s Map. NE 10th St was recently
constructed as a portion of the Sunset Master Site Plan and consists of
approximately 30’ width of pavement with curb, gutter, planter and sidewalk on
the both sides of the road.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
WATER
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
1. As part of the land use application LUA19-000274, the applicant has submitted a
preliminary civil plan prepared by Coterra dated 10/30/19 for the on-site water main
improvements which includes a new 10-inch water main within the north private access
road to the development connecting to the existing 12-inch city water mains in
Glennwood Ave NE and in Harrington Ave NE. See (RMC 4-6-010B) for City Code and
Development Standards. The improvements will provide a looped water system around
the development as required by city codes for development with a fire flow demand over
2,500 gallons per minute and the new looped water system can deliver 3,800 gpm. The
preliminary civil water plan must be revised to show the following:
a. The proposed fire sprinkler system as shown on the above submitted
preliminary utility plan must be revised to show the installation of the detector
double check valve assembly (DDCVA) inside an underground concrete vault per
city water standard plan no. 360.2 at the connection point to the new 10-inch
on-site water main and the vault shall be located outside of the buildings. The
sizing of the fire sprinkler stub and related piping shall be done by a registered
fire sprinkler designer/contractor. The DDCVA may be installed inside the
building if it meets the conditions per City Standard Plan 360.5 for the
installation of a DDCVA inside a building. The location of the DDCVA inside the
building must be pre-approved by the City Plan Reviewer and Water Utility.
Final fire sprinkler plans must be submitted to Renton Fire Prevention for review
and approval.
b. A double check valve assembly (DCVA) must be installed in a meter box behind
each of the domestic water meters to the 3 buildings per standard plan no. 340.8
A DCVA is also required for the landscape irrigation meter if applicable. DCVAs
size 2-inch or smaller shall be installed in a meter box.
c. A pressure reducing valve (PRV) is also required downstream of each domestic
water meter because the static water pressure is over 80 psi. The static water
pressure is about 96 psi at ground elevation of 343 feet.
d. The domestic water meter to Building C should be located behind the frontage
of Sunset Lane NE and the meter shall be connected to the existing 12-inch water
stub serving the existing hydrant at the northeast corner of Sunset Lane and
Harrington Ave NE.
e. The sizing of all domestic meters shall conform to the Uniform Plumbing Code
water meter sizing criteria. The applicant shall provide the calculations for the
sizing of the water meter to the city for review prior to final approval of the
water plan. Meters 3” or larger, shall be installed in a concrete vault located
outside of the building per COR Standard Plan 320.4. By-pass piping, valves,
and associated piping shall be purchased and installed by the developer /
contractor under City observation for meters 3” or larger.
2. The proposed water main improvements are required to be shown on the composite
utility civil plan submitted with the Land Use Application. The required 10-inch water main
extension into the development, connecting to the existing 12-inch water main located in
Harrington Ave NE and the existing 12-inch water main located in Glennwood Ave NE.
Renton Fire Authority has determined that the preliminary fire flow demand for the
proposed development is 2,750 gpm which is greater than the available maximum fire
flow capacity. The following water system improvements are required:
a. Looped water main around the buildings.
b. A minimum of three fire hydrants are required. One within 150 -feet and two
within 300-feet of each building. One hydrant is required within 50-feet of all
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
fire department connections for standpipes and sprinkler systems. Buildings
shall also meet maximum hydrant spacing of 300-feet on center.
c. Each building shall have a separate fire sprinkler service water main and a
separate fire department connection that is accessible from the city street, not
the public alleyway as shown, as it is not wide enough for fire access.
d. Approved fire sprinkler, standpipe and fire alarm systems are required
throughout all the buildings. Dry standpipes are required in all stairways.
Direct outside access is required to the fire sprinkler riser room. Fire alarm
system is required to be fully addressable and full detection is required.
Separate plans and permits required by the fire department.
e. Fire department apparatus access roadways are adequately provided by the
current existing city streets.
3. Please refer to City of Renton General Design and Construction Standards for Water Main
Extensions as shown in Appendix J of the City’s 2012 Water System Plan.
4. Adequate horizontal and vertical separation between the new water main and other
utilities (storm sewer pipes and vaults, sanitary sewer, power, gas, electrical) shall be
provided for the operation and maintenance of the water main.
5. Retaining walls, rockeries or similar structures cannot be installed over the water main
unless the water main is inside a steel casing.
6. The site is located outside of an Aquifer Protection Area.
7. The development is subject to applicable water system development charges and meter
installation fees based on the size of the water meters.
a. Water system development charges for each proposed 1-1/2 inch domestic water
service is $20,250.00 per meter and $32,400.00 for 2-inch meters (two 1-1/2
meters and one 2-inch meter).
b. Water system development charges for each proposed 4-inch* fire service is
$12,956.00 per meter (three 4-inch fire meters). *Larger meters may be required
based on each building’s sprinkler design and may result in additional SDC
charges.
c. A redevelopment credit of the water system development charges in the amount
of $4,050.00 will be applied to each of the five (5) existing ¾-inch meters servicing
the properties if they are abandoned and capped at the main line or $20,250 for
(5) ¾-inch meters.
d. The redevelopment credit is only in effect for 5 years after the date of the
demolition of the existing structures per RMC 4-1-180 (B)(1)(e). The 5 existing
structures received demolition permits in August of 2016 and in order to receive
credit, the construction permit issuance will need to occur before August of 2021.
e. The total water SDC fee is $91,518.00. This is payable at construction permit
issuance.
8. Water service installation charges for each proposed 1-1/2 inch water service is $4,605.00
per meter and $4,735.00 for each proposed 2-inch water service. The total water service
installation fee is $13,945.00. This is payable at construction permit issuance.
9. Meters greater than 2” will be charged a $220.00 processing fee and the contractor will
provide the meter and install it.
10. The site contains 2 parcels located within the Sunset Lane latecomer’s boundary area.
These assessment have not yet been finalized, but preliminary assessments have been
recorded against the properties. The final assessments have been calculated and are
included below in relation to the preliminary assessments. *These amounts will not be
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
final until the final assessment values are approved by City Council and recorded at a
future date.
Assessment Parcel 9 (Parcel ID 7227801295):
Preliminary Water Only Assessment = $89,005.00
Final* Water Only Assessment = $38,734.00
Parcel 10 (Parcel ID 7227801315):
Preliminary Water Only Assessment = $32,759.00
Final* Water Only Assessment = $14,007.00
The assessments will be applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction
permit.
11. Additional water system development charges and water meter charges will apply if a
landscape irrigation meter is required and is based on the size of the meter.
SEWER
1. There are no proposed sewer main improvements shown on the composite utility civil
plan submitted with the Land Use Application. The 3 new proposed buildings are
proposing side sewer connections into the existing 8” sewer mains located in Glennwood
Ave NE and Harrington Ave NE. The following sewer system improvements are required:
a. Floor drains shall connect to the public sewer.
b. Covered parking areas will need to direct parking drainage to the sanitary
sewer system through an oil/water interceptor. Where parking is not covered,
it will need to be directed away from the sanitary sewer and into the storm
sewer system.
c. Covered dumpster/recycling areas will need to direct drainage to the sanitary
sewer system through a catch basin containing a turned-down elbow. A
grease interceptor or oil/water separator may be required by the City Plan
Reviewer and Wastewater Utility based on size of the covered area and
potential for fats, oils and greases (FOG) to enter the wastewater system.
2. All existing side sewers will be required to be cut and capped during demolition of the
properties. New side sewers shall be installed to serve each individual building.
3. The development is proposing connection of 3 new buildings.
4. The development is subject to applicable wastewater system development charges based
on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project.
a. SDC fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the
project. The current sewer fee for each 1-1/2 inch meter is $15,500.00 per meter
and the 2-inch meter is $24,800.00.
b. A redevelopment credit of the wastewater system development charges in the
amount of $3,100 equal to the SDC fee for the size of the existing water meter(s)
will be applied to each of the five (5) existing ¾” meters to if they are abandoned
and capped at the main line or $15,500.00 for (5) ¾-inch meters.
c. The redevelopment credit is only in effect for 5 years after the date of the
demolition of the existing structures per RMC 4-1-180 (B)(1)(e). The 5 existing
structures received demolition permits in August of 2016 and in order to receive
credit, the construction permit issuance will need to occur before August of
2021.
d. The total sewer SDC fee is $40,300.00. This is payable at construction permit
issuance.
e. SDC fees are payable at construction permit issuance.
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
5. The site contains 2 parcels located within the Sunset Lane latecomer’s boundary area.
These assessment have not yet been finalized, but preliminary assessments have been
recorded against the properties. The final assessments have been calculated and are
included below in relation to the preliminary assessments. *These amounts will not be
final until recorded at a future date.
• Assessment Parcel 9 (Parcel ID 7227801295):
Preliminary Sewer Only Assessment = $47,426.00
Final* Sewer Only Assessment = $74,570.00
• Parcel 10 (Parcel ID 7227801315):
Preliminary Sewer Only Assessment = $0.00
Final* Sewer Only Assessment = $0.00
The assessments will be applicable at the time of issuance of the utility construction
permit.
SURFACE WATER
1. A geotechnical report, dated May 15, 2019, completed by ZipperGeo Geoprofessional
Consultants for the site has been provided. The submitted report describes the site as a
Low Erosion Hazard area. Erosion control measures will need to be in place prior to
starting grading activities on the site. The report needs to discuss the soil and
groundwater characteristics of the site including infiltration potential and provide
recommendations for project design and construction. Geotechnical recommendations
presented need to be address within the project plans.
a. Shallow Foundation Recommendations: The geotechnical report identifies
some loose undocumented fill encountered at footing subgrade elevations. As
a result, design consideration for overexcavation and replacement of the
undocumented fills in conjunction with shallow foundations shall be taken into
account during engineering design.
b. Based on the geotechnical report, due to glacial till encountered at a depth of
3-5 feet, stormwater infiltration is infeasible.
2. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated September 3,
2019, was submitted by Coterra Engineer PLLC with the Land Use Application. Based on
the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls within the
Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area matching Existing Site Conditions and is within the
East Lake Washington - Renton Drainage Basin. The development is subject to Full
Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual
(RSWDM). All nine core requirements and the six special requirements have been
discussed in the Technical Information Report. The following stormwater improvements
are required and shall be discussed within the TIR:
a. Applicant has included discussion of special requirement #6, which relates to the
aquifer protection area, in the preliminary drainage report. The 2017 RSWDM
and preliminary drainage report indicate that the project is within Zone 2 of the
APA, however, updated wellhead protection boundaries have been updated in
the City of Renton Maps (online COR Maps) and the site is no longer within the
Zone 2 protection area. Final TIR shall indicate this update.
b. Appropriate on-site BMPs are be required to help mitigate the new runoff
created by this development. The preliminary drainage plan indicates that on-
site BMP’s are infeasible, however, the project is proposing the use of
permeable pavement which is an approved BMP method. Based on the
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
recommendations of the geotechnical engineer per the Geotechnical
Engineering Report prepared by Zipper Geo Associates, LLC, permeable
pavement without an underdrain appears infeasible. Clarification by
geotechnical engineer for applicability of permeable pavement shall be
required. Additionally, since the project is proposing a detention facility, the
application of the LID flow control development standard is also applicable
(RSWDM 1.2.9.1 B and 1.2.9.2.2-1 pgs 1-75 & 1-78) and may be utilized in lieu
of determining that BMP’s are infeasible. If the LID Performance Standard
option is selected, the civil construction plans and TIR will need to address this
discrepancy and provide appropriate facilities and/or increase the size of the
detention facility.
c. Storm drainage pipes shall not be located beneath the landscape strip or
sidewalk. Relocate the lines into the paved roadway and provide solid round
locking lids where required.
d. Roof drains require a minimum 10-foot easement. Applicant shall provide
details on how the roof drains will be connected into the public storm drain
system. Such connections shall be in accordance with City of Renton standards
and the 2017 RSWDM. Perforated pipe connections are only required where
roof downspouts connect to the local drainage system without first connecting
to a flow control facility, dispersion BMP, or full infiltration BMP.
3. The development is required to provide enhanced water quality treatment prior to
discharge. Project water quality treatment will consist of conveyance to an approved
water quality facility prior to connection to the existing 18-inch CPEP stormwater main
located Glennwood Ave NE.
a. The applicant is proposing the use of permeable pavement with a sand-layer as
a water quality facility, however, permeable pavement is not considered an
approved water quality facility per Core Requirement #8 and Chapter 6 of the
2017 RSWDM. For target impervious surfaces to be considered “exempt” from
water quality per the “soil treatment exemption” in section 1.2.8 Exemption #4
(pg 1-65) of the RSWDM, the project must meet the “gro undwater protection
criteria” as outlined within the section. Specifically, the first 2 feet or more of
the soil beneath the infiltration facility must have a cation exchange capacity
greater than 5 and an organic content greater than 0.5% and must meet
additional specifications based on soil infiltration rate and composition. The
geotechnical engineer will need to analyze and provide testing results that
concur with the soil’s ability to provide water quality treatment and be able to
infiltrate the design volume storm. The final technical information report will
need to address modeling of the infiltration water quality facility and provide
the applicable calculation and determination that the volume of runoff being
infiltrated meets the water quality standard.
b. Presettling shall be provided per Section 6.5.1 of the 2017 RSWDM in the event
an alternate water quality facility is proposed in lieu of permeable pavement
and infiltration.
c. The conveyance and water quality systems shall be designed in accordance with
the RSWDM that is current at the time of civil construction permit application.
d. Maintenance access to the stormwater facilities and connected structures shall
be provided in accordance with the design requirements outlined in the
RSWDM.
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
4. The TIR did not identify any downstream flooding or erosion issues and there are no
identified critical areas located on or adjacent to the site.
a. The development shall not create protected slopes as defined by RMC 4-3-050.
b. Grading shall be in accordance with RMC 4-4-060.
5. Per the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan (Ordinance 5611), Harrington Ave NE is a
green connector with sections of the street required to have rain gardens or parking in
either one side or both sides of the street.
a. Section 3 of the Harrington and Jefferson Avenue Sections will be utilized along
the site frontage and does not contain rain gardens. Figure 5 provided in
Transportation section below contains a graphic of the applicable section.
6. Any proposed detention and/or water quality vault shall be designed in accordance with
the RSWDM that is current at the time of civil construction permit application. Separate
structural plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval under a separate
building permit for the detention and/or water quality vault. Special inspection from the
building department is required.
7. All work proposed outside of the applicant’s property will require a permanent drainage
easement to be provided to the City and a temporary construction easement prior to any
permits being issued.
8. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required
if grading and clearing of the site exceeds one acre. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) is required for this site.
9. Surface water system development fee is $0.720 per square foot of new impervious
surface, but not less than $1,800.00. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction
permit.
TRANSPORTATION
1. The proposed development fronts Glennwood Ave NE along the west property line,
Harrington Ave NE along the east property, and NE 10th Street along the south property
line. Glennwood Ave NE and NE 10th Street are classified as a streets and Harrington Ave
NE is identified in the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a green street.
Harrington Ave NE : Per King County Assessor map, the existing ROW width is 60
feet. This street is identified in the Sunset Area Surface Water Plan as a Green street.
The required ROW width is 60 feet. The plan includes for Harrington Ave NE a street
section includes 20 feet paved travel roadway and 3 alternatives for the parking lanes,
sidewalks, planter, rain garden, etc. All the proposed street elements are within ROW
width of 60 feet.
a. Staff has determined that Section 3 and modifications to Harrington Ave Street
Sections, including the addition of a bulb-out at the Harrington/NE 10th
intersection (see figures below), is applicable. Applicant is responsible for
design and construction of the half-street frontage improvements meeting this
section. No ROW dedication is required along this side of the property.
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
Glennwood Ave NE : Per King County Assessor map, the existing ROW width is 50
feet. This is classified as a public residential street. Per RMC 4-6-060, the minimum
required ROW width for a residential street is 53 feet with 26 feet paved width, 0.5
feet wide curbs, 8 feet wide landscaped planters, and 5 feet wide sidewalks.
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
a. A minimum 4.5 foot ROW dedication is required along the Glennwood Ave NE
west property line. The attached figure below shows the alignment and section
of Glennwood Ave NE that meets this requirement.
b. All overhead utilities along Glennwood Ave NE shall be undergrounded.
NE 10th Street : Per King County Assessor map, the existing ROW width is 50 feet. NE
10th St was recently constructed as a portion of the Sunset Master Site Plan and
consists of approximately 30’ width of pavement with curb, gutter, planter and
sidewalk on the both sides of the road.
a. No additional frontage improvements are required along NE 10th Street.
b. Any work within NE 10th Street will require in-kind or better restoration.
2. A 12’ wide pave public residential alleys is being proposed along the north property line
of the project site with a 16’ public alley ROW dedication.
a. Alley does not meet the 20’ minimum paved fire access width and will not be
considered an approved fire apparatus access route. All fire protection
appurtenances are required to be located adjacent to the public rights-of-way
in Glennwood Ave NE or Harrington Ave NE and not within the interior parking
plaza.
3. ADA access ramps shall be installed at all street crossings. Ramps shall be shown at each
intersection. Ramps shall be oriented to provide direct pedestrian crossings.
a. Access ramp at the southeast corner of the site and NE 10th Street/Harrington
Ave NE intersection shall be rebuilt to accommodate the bulb-out widening at
the intersection.
4. Parking lot construction shall be in accordance with City code 4-4-80G.Street lighting and
street trees are required to meet current city standards. Lighting plans are required to be
submitted with the land use application and will be reviewed during the construction
utility permit review.
5. A traffic analysis dated September 11, 2019, was provided by Transpo Group. The site
generated traffic volumes were calculated using data from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, (2017). Based on the calculations
provided, the proposed development would average 337 new daily vehicle trips.
Weekday peak hour AM trips would generate 22 new vehicle trips, with 16 vehicles
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
leaving and 6 vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 27
new vehicle trips, with 16 vehicles entering and 11 vehicles existing the site. As detailed
in the report the proposed project is not expected to lower the levels of service of the
surrounding intersections (Edmonds Avenue NE/NE 12th Street, Harrington Avenue NE/NE
12th Street and new site public alley access points to Glenwood and Harrington) included
in the traffic study. As an affordable housing residential project, payment of the City’s
transportation impact fees will not be required, thus no mitigation is required.
6. Paving and trench restoration shall comply with the City’s Trench Restoration and Overlay
Requirements.
7. Payment of the transportation impact fee is not applicable since the project qualifies as
an affordable housing residential project.
8. The site contains 2 parcels located within the Sunset Lane latecomer’s boundary area.
These assessment have not yet been finalized, but preliminary assessments have been
recorded against the properties. The final assessments have been calculated and are
included below in relation to the preliminary assessments. *These amounts will not be
final until recorded at a future date.
• Assessment Parcel 9 (Parcel ID 7227801295):
Preliminary Transportation Only Assessment = $381,561.00
Final* Transportation Only Assessment = $373,790.00
• Parcel 10 (Parcel ID 7227801315):
Preliminary Transportation Only Assessment = $0.00
Final* Transportation Only Assessment = $0.00
9. Transportation Concurrency is provided under separate cover.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. All existing and proposed utility lines (i.e. electrical, phone, and cable services, etc.) along
property frontage or within the site must be underground. The construction of these
franchise utilities must be inspected and approved by a City of Renton inspector.
2. Maximum exposed retaining wall height is 6-ft and shall be setback a minimum of 3-ft
from the right-of-way as outlined in RMC 4-4-040 – Fences, Hedges and Retaining Walls.
3. Adequate separation between utilities as well as other features shall be provided in
accordance with code requirements.
a. 7-ft minimum horizontal and 1-ft vertical separation between storm and other
utilities is required with the exception of water lines which require 10-ft
horizontal and 1.5-ft vertical.
b. The stormwater line should be minimum 5 feet away from any other structure or
wall or building.
c. Trench of any utility should not be in the zone of influence of the retaining wall
or of the building.
4. A civil construction permit for the site, utility and street improvements will require a
separate plan submittal. Civil construction plans shall conform to the City Renton
Drafting Standards. A licensed Civil Engineer shall prepare the civil plans. Please visit the
City’s website for submittal requirements:
https://rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9687014
5. A landscaping plan shall be included with the civil plan submittal. Each plan shall be on
separate sheets.
6. Fees quoted in this document reflect the fees applicable in the year 2019 only and will be
Sunset Oaks Apartments – LUA19-000274
assessed based on the fee that is current at the time of the permit application or issuance,
as applicable to the permit type. Please visit www.rentonwa.gov for the current
development fee schedule.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: December 9, 2019
TO: Matt Herrera, Senior Planner
FROM: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test – Sunset Oakes; LUA19-000274
The applicant is requesting administrative site plan review, minor modification to the approved
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan, and concurrence with the Sunset Area Planned
Action EIS for a 60 unit multifamily project located at 1073 Harrington Ave NE. The subject
property is 45,819 square feet (1.05 acres) and located in Commercial Mixed Use land use
designation and Center Village zoning classification. The subject property is referred to as master
plan site 14,16/17 Sunset Oaks within the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan and has
been allocated 19 multifamily units as part of the approved master plan. The applicant has
requested a minor modification to the master plan to reallocate 43 units from master plan site
18 Edmonds/Willowcrest to the subject property. The proposed 60 multifamily units would
result in approximately 57 dwelling units per net acre. Vehicle access to the site would be via a
new alley located on the northern portion of the property providing access to Harrington Ave NE
and Glennwood Ave NE. The applicant has submitted reports and memoranda for impacts
related to transportation, stormwater, geotechnical, and tree removal/retention. The project site
is within the Sunset Planned Action Area and the City’s Environmental Review Committee will
determine whether the proposal qualifies as a Planned Action.
The proposed development would generate approximately 326 net new average weekday daily
trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 22 net new
trips (6 inbound and 16 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would
generate approximately 26 net new trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound). The proposed project
passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows:
Transportation Concurrency Test – Sunset Oakes
Page 2 of 3
December 9, 2019
Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes
Within allowed growth levels Yes
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project Yes
Traffic Concurrency Test Passes
Evaluation of Test Criteria
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan: The City’s investment in completion of the
forecast traffic improvements is 130% of the scheduled expenditure through 2020.
Within allowed growth levels: As shown on the attached citywide traffic concurrency summary,
the calculated citywide trip capacity for concurrency with the city adopted model for 2019 is
1,760 trips, which provides sufficient capacity to accommodate approximately 26 additional trips
from this project. A resulting 1,734 trips are remaining.
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees: The project will be subject to
transportation impact fees at time of building permit for the project.
Site specific street improvements to be completed by project: The project will be required to
complete frontage street improvements prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Any additional off-site
improvements identified through SEPA or land use approval will also be completed prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
Background Information on Traffic Concurrency Test for Renton
The City of Renton Traffic Concurrency requirements for proposed development projects are
covered under Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-6-070. The specific concurrency test requirement
is covered in RMC 4-6-070.D, which is listed for reference:
D. CONCURRENCY REVIEW PROCESS:
1. Test Required: A concurrency test shall be conducted by the Department for each
nonexempt development activity. The concurrency test shall determine consistency with
the adopted Citywide Level of Service Index and Concurrency Management System
established in the Transportation Element of the Renton Comprehensive Plan, according
to rules and procedures established by the Department. The Department shall issue an
initial concurrency test result describing the outcome of the concurrency test.
Transportation Concurrency Test – Sunset Oakes
Page 3 of 3
December 9, 2019
2. Written Finding Required: Prior to approval of any nonexempt development activity
permit application, a written finding of concurrency shall be made by the City as part of
the development permit approval. The finding of concurrency shall be made by the
decision maker with the authority to approve the accompanying development permits
required for a development activity. A written finding of concurrency shall apply only to
the specific land uses, densities, intensities, and development project described in the
application and development permit.
3. Failure of Test: If no reconsideration is requested, or if upon reconsideration a project
fails the concurrency test, the project application shall be denied by the decision maker
with the authority to approve the accompanying development activity permit application.
The Concurrency Management System established in the Transportation Element on page XI -65
of the Comprehensive Plan states the following:
Based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels
included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation
Fee, and an application of site specific mitigation, development will have met City of
Renton concurrency requirements.