HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-23-2021 Revised Decision Letter & Decision
February 23, 2021
SENT BY EMAIL TO 15 PARTIES OF RECORD
SENT BY MAILED TO 7 PARTIES OF RECORD
Mark Stine, Applicant
Email: marks@tiscareno.net
Subject: Revised Notice of Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision
RE: Solera Master Plan – LUA20-000305
Important: Includes information regarding appeal deadlines
Dear Mr. Stine:
This letter is a notice of decision of the City of Renton’s Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Final Decision (“Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision”) dated February 18, 2021
regarding the above-referenced project. The Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision is available on the
City’s website per the following:
• If you go to: rentonwa.gov; “How do I”; Hearing Examiner (under Contact);
“Decisions”; “Land Use Decision”. The decisions are filed by year and then in
alphabetical order by project name.
This letter is a revised notice of decision; however, please note that the Hearing Examiner’s Final
Decision has not been revised. This revised notice was necessary because the original notice of
decision was not sent to all parties of record, due to an unintended oversight. This revised notice is
being sent to the full list of parties of record.
The Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision states that any appeals “must be filed within fourteen (14)
calendar days from the date of the decision.” For clarity, and due to this revised notice of decision,
the 14-day appeal period shall begin three (3) days from the date of this letter (in other words, on
February 26, 2021), consistent with Renton Municipal Code 4-8-110C.2. This timing also applies to
any requests for reconsideration.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Seth, MMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Matthew Herrera Senior Planner
Vanessa Dolbee, Planning Director
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Robert Shuey, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record by Mail (7)
Parties of Record by Email (15)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Solera Master Plan
Modification to Master Plan, Site Plan and
Preliminary Plat; Street Modification.
LUA20,000305, SA-M, PP, SA-H, MOD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant is requesting a modification to the previously approved Master Plan and Preliminary Plat
Approval, Site Plan Review for Blocks A and B of the Master Site Plan, and Street Modification for a
proposed mixed-use development that would include 651 multi-family residential units and
approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space located on a 10.8-acre site at 2902 NE Sunset
Blvd. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcription of the proceeding, as well as a recording of the proceeding, is
available from the City Clerk’s Office upon request and payment of any applicable fees.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-47 identified at page 2 of the February 2, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the February
2, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the February 2, 2021
public hearing as well:
Exhibit 48 Staff Power Point
Exhibit 49 Standstill Agreement w/ Two Amendments
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Exhibit 50 COR Maps
Exhibit 51 Google Earth Vicinity Aerials
Exhibit 52 Applicant Power Point
Exhibit 53 Michael Read Resume
Exhibit 54 Jeremy Febus Resume
Exhibit 55 Mark Stine Resume
Exhibit 56 Draft Solera Modified Conditions
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Tom Neubauer, Solera Manager LLC, 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 120, Bellevue,
WA 98004
2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject applications on February 2, 2021 via Zoom
and the hearing was left open through 5 pm, February 3, 2021 for written comment for persons who
may have been unable to participate virtually due to technical issues.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant is requesting a modification to the previously
approved Master Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval, Site Plan Review for Blocks A and B of the
Master Site Plan, and Street Modification for a proposed mixed-use development that would include
651 multi-family residential units and approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space located
on a 10.8 acres site at 2902 NE Sunset Blvd.
The subject property would contain two mixed use buildings along the NE Sunset Blvd frontage,
referred to as Blocks A and B on the master site plan. Blocks A and B would contain 555 multi-family
units, of which 277 units would be affordable, and each building would contain ground floor
commercial space. The subject property would also contain approximately 96 fee-simple townhomes,
referred to as Blocks C and D in the master plan, utilizing the unit lot subdivision provisions.
Residential density on the subject property would result in approximately 71 dwelling units per net
acre. The master plan would contain approximately 1,024 off-street parking spaces located within the
mixed-use buildings, townhome units, and a 13-space primary surface load/unload zone. The existing
Greater Hi-Lands Shopping Center would be removed. Public street improvements would be
constructed providing access through the site. Private alleys are proposed for vehicle access to
townhome units. Street frontage improvements would be constructed along the site’s periphery.
Proposed drainage improvements include the use of bioretention planters and an underground
infiltration facility.
The subject property was originally approved for master plan, conditional use and street modification
by examiner decision dated December 11, 2018. The Applicant’s modified master site plan (Exhibit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
2) requests modifications to this approval that include an increase in multifamily dwelling units from
521 to 555, a decrease in townhome units from 152 to 96, an increase in parking stalls from 906 to
1,024, no significant change in commercial space (staying at approximately 39,000 square feet),
wider internal streets and angled parking along NE Sunset Boulevard to replace previously proposed
parallel parking. As previously noted, site plan review for the first two phases, for Blocks A and B,
is reviewed in this consolidated application. A separate site plan review approval and unit lot
subdivision would be required for phase three (3) referred to as Blocks C and D in the modified
master site plan.
A final modification is a reduction in phases from five to three. The Applicant has submitted a
modified phasing plan (Exhibit 15) in which the Applicant proposes a sequence to construct Block A
along with internal and frontage infrastructure in the initial phase and Block B in phase two (2).
Blocks C and D would be constructed in a future phase three (3) that would require a separate site
plan review prior to construction.
The Applicant’s street modification request is to RMC 4-6-060 to increase the width of the residential
access street standards to 59-feet along Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St resulting in an additional six
(6) foot parking lane. In addition, the Applicant is requesting to further modify the parallel parking
along NE Sunset Blvd, a granted street modification approval in the initial master plan (Exhibit 3),
to angled parking.
The initial Solera Master Plan decision (Exhibit 3) provided conditional use permit approval for an
increased maximum height for Block A (previously referred to as Mixed Use Building A) of 75-feet
and increased maximum height for Block B (previously referred to as Mixed Use Building B) of 85-
feet. As shown on the Block A and Block B elevations (Exhibits 23 and 24), proposed heights are
less than initially proposed with each building approximately 70-feet in height, thereby meeting the
maximum heights granted by the master plan’s conditional use permit. Staff testified that they found
the impacts of the currently proposed building height to be fully addressed in the prior conditional
use approval. The current application is vested to the previous maximum height for mixed use
buildings of 60-feet and the previously approved conditional use permit remains in effect to authorize
the excess height in the current proposal.
As proposed, Blocks A and B each have a mix of affordable and market multi-family dwelling units.
This was a change from the project as previously approved, which didn’t include any affordable units.
Shortly before staff completed its staff report for the current proposal, the Applicant advised staff that
one block will be entirely affordable units and the other market rate. Since staff have not had an
opportunity to review the change, it will be processed as a new modification to the project approved
by this proceeding, governed by the modification review procedures addressed in Condition No. 21
of this decision. At hearing, the Applicant testified that the change in dwelling mix will not result in
any change to the building footprints or facades.
4. Surrounding Uses. Multifamily residential is located to the north and west of the project. A fire
station is also located to the north. To the east is commercial retail and to the south is commercial
retail, a library and a park. All surrounding areas are zoned CV.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas (e.g. wetlands, streams, geographically hazardous areas)
on the project site. The existing site is almost entirely paved or contains existing structures that
will be removed.
B. Tree Protection. As conditioned, the proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards
and thus provides for adequate protection of trees. As noted in the staff report, the Applicant is
required to retain three on-site trees and is only proposing to retain one of them. As a result, as
required by the City’s tree retention standards, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to
provide for 24 caliper inches of replacement trees to mitigate the inability to retain three trees.
C. External Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project has been appropriately designed to mitigate aesthetic/compatibility impacts caused by
its relatively large mass and scale to some surrounding uses. The Applicant proposes to construct
the larger mixed-use buildings along NE Sunset Blvd, a principal arterial in the City and adjacent
to other intensive uses such as shopping centers that are also within the CV zoning classification.
The project transitions north, west, and south with 3-story townhome development as it nears less
intensive multi-family and single-family development patterns. The transition in scale across the
development from NE Sunset Boulevard to Harrington Place NE provides a development pattern
that allows for a transition from a primary commercial center along an arterial to a residential
neighborhood along residential access roads.
A solar study was completed for the initial master plan application (Exhibit 3) that found the
proposed mixed-use buildings would not shade neighboring civic spaces at the Sunset
Neighborhood Park or Highlands Library. Summer afternoon shading would occur on NE Sunset
Blvd. The proposed modification would likely increase shading on portions of Kirkland Ave NE
due to the expanded footprint of Block A. Shading would extend into the morning hours during
the Spring Equinox and Winter Solstice, however these months the sun is often obscured by
clouds.
D. Lighting. As conditioned, the proposal will provide adequate lighting for safety and pedestrian
circulation while also preventing unnecessary light spillage on adjoining properties. The Applicant
has prepared a lighting plan, Ex. 35. As shown in the plan, the Applicant has proposed wall sconce
lighting along all facades of Block A and Block B and awning mounted downlighting along the
NE Sunset Blvd frontage. A pole mounted light and wall mounted lights are shown to
accommodate the daycare pickup/drop-off and service area on the southeast façade of Block B
behind the Shell fuel facility. Detail sheets of the fixtures were not provided to ensure they
complement the development’s architecture and design. Additionally, the photometric component
of the lighting plan indicates 0.0 foot-candles measurements in in plazas and other pedestrian
oriented spaces. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised
lighting plan with the building permit application for Block A and Block B that includes detail
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
sheets of all light fixtures and their supports. Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled and
consistent with the design of the site and provide adequate foot-candle illumination in pedestrian
areas as shown on a revised photometric calculation.
The photometric calculations of the Applicant’s lighting plan do not identify foot candle trespass
offsite, with the exception of abutting sidewalks. Lighting placement and glare impacts w ill be
further reviewed with the building permit application. The City’s lighting standards regulate
excessive lighting onto adjacent properties and assure that the proposal will not generate excessive
light and glare.
E. Views. According to the staff report, it is not anticipated the new buildings would result in
substantially obscuring existing views of attractive natural features, including shorelines or Mt.
Rainier. There is no evidence to the contrary in the administrative record.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton.
B. Fire and Police Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources
exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the
Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. The 2021 fire impact fees are
$964.53 per multifamily unit, $1.25 per square foot for retail, and $5.92 square feet for
restaurant. Assessed fees are based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule. The fee is paid at
time of building permit issuance.
C. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal will provide for adequate parks and open
space. A Park Impact Fee will be required for the future dwellings. The current Park Impact
Fee is $1,977.62.
As to open space, City development standards require 27,750 square feet of open space for
the proposed 555 dwelling units located within Blocks A and B. As shown on the open space
plan (Exhibit 36), the Applicant proposes approximately 41,586 square feet of exterior open
space. Floor plans for Blocks A and B (Exhibits 19 and 20) provide approximately 8,200
square feet of combined interior recreation facilities.
The largest exterior common open space areas would be located on the podiums of Blocks
A and B. As shown on the open space plan, Block A podium would contain 19,301 square
feet of space and contain planters, seating areas, pergola, barbeque, shuffleboard, and
children’s play area. Block B podium would contain 18,156 square feet and contain planters,
seating, pergola, barbeque, community garden, and children’s play area. Air, sun, and light
exposure are provided via the orientation of the buildings and openings at the two ends of
each of the podiums. Ground level open spaces include the 3,397 square foot children’s play
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
area on the south side of Block B and 732 square foot plaza space on the northwest side of
Block B.
Interior recreation spaces for Blocks A and B as shown on their respective floor plans
(Exhibits 19 and 20) provide gymnasium, fitness, pool, and game room space.
Approximately 3,600 square feet is provided in Block A and Block B contains approximately
4,600 square feet.
D. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable pedestrian transitions and
linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Further, the proposal
provides for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,
open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties.
The mixed-use buildings on Blocks A and B would nearly cover the entirety of their
respective parcels resulting in the abutting public sidewalks as the principal pedestrian
circulation. As shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 17) Block A contains a
plaza area near the intersection of Kirkland Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd with a 15-foot-
wide pathway and landscaping. The main residential entries for Blocks A and B located at
the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St each contain an open area plaza that
transitions into the public sidewalk. Finally, a six (6) foot wide pathway is located parallel
to the daycare entry on the southeast corner of Block B to accommodate the pickup and drop-
off area. This pathway narrows to approximately four (4) feet wide as it connects to the NE
10th St sidewalk. These areas contain clear site lines as they abut the public sidewalk and
the daycare pathway also directly abuts a glazed portion of the building. New sidewalks
would be provided along all street frontages with a new 12-foot-wide sidewalk located along
NE Sunset Blvd.
E. Vehicle Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable vehicle transitions and linkages
between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The project’s internal public street
alignment remains consistent with the initially approved master plan. Sunset Lane NE would
extend northeasterly from NE 10th St connecting the site to Sunset Neighborhood Park, and
align the spine road with Jefferson Ave NE. An east/west connection would be provided via
NE 11th St connecting Harrington Pl NE to NE Sunset Blvd.
F. Street Improvements. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation
improvements. Public works staff have reviewed the proposal for site plan level
conformance to City street standards and has found the proposal to be generally consistent.
A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Transpo Group for the 2018 master plan
approval. 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 traffic study found conformance to adopted level of service
standards with no need for off-site traffic improvements other than those funded by the
transportation impact fees.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
The Applicant submitted a transportation consistency analysis prepared by TENW, dated
November 24, 2020 (Exhibit 38), that provides an addendum to the initial master plan
(Exhibit 3) traffic impact analysis (TIA). The updated analysis removes the existing bank
and drive through that were assumed to remain in the initial master plan decision and updates
average trip rates or regression equations for Mid-Rise Multifamily, Low-Rise Multifamily,
Daycare Center, and Retail while removing the Senior Housing trip rate from the initial
analysis. The updated analysis incorrectly identifies 552 units multifamily within Blocks A
and B and 35,017 square feet of retail.
The analysis found the proposed modification to the master plan would result in a net change
of 11 fewer AM peak hour trips and net addition of 29 PM peak hour trips at full buildout of
the plan. The analysis indicated the changes from the initial TIA did not war rant additional
traffic analysis or review of traffic operational impacts.
A timely agency comment submitted by Washington State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT) (Exhibit 10) requesting the Applicant update the TIA to include analysis of the
northbound and southbound I-405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. As noted in the
City correspondence with WSDOT, this analysis is needed for documentation purposes and
to comply with WSDOT procedural standards. WSDOT indicated that the agency would not
be seeking mitigation based on results of the updated analysis. Therefore, a condition of
approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the
civil construction permit application that provides analysis of the northbound and
southbound I-405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. The revised TIA shall also
provide a correction to the total number of units in Blocks A and B and correction to the total
square footage of retail space.
The Applicant will be required to construct street improvements meeting the City’s Street
Standards set forth in RMC 4-6-060 unless otherwise modified. Internal streets to the
development that would be improved are Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St. The street sections
include a modified 59-foot-wide ROW (Exhibit 39). Both streets would include 32-foot
pavement width that would provide two (2) 10-foot travel lanes and two (2) 6-foot parking
lanes. On each side of the paved street, 0.5-foot curbs, eight (8) foot planter strips with street
trees, and five (5) foot sidewalks would be constructed. As conditioned, the Applicant is
required to construct a concrete raised intersection at NE 11th St and Sunset Lane NE.
Portions of NE 11th St within development would require a street vacation. The street
vacation process requires separate approval from City Council. As conditioned, the
Applicant is required to receive preliminary approval of the necessary street vacation prior
to issuance of the civil construction permit.
Frontage improvements to NE 12th St., Kirkland Ave NE, and Harrington Pl NE would
remain as indicated in the initial master plan decision and shown on the road plan (Exhibit
39). A modification to the NE Sunset Blvd. frontage, will provide angled parking instead of
the initially approved parallel parking.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
The proposal passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D with the initial
master plan decision, 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.
G. Vehicular Access. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate access, with all units
having access to public streets.
As shown on the modified master site plan (Exhibit 2), access is provided on side streets
with the exception of Block B where an existing ingress/egress easement is located abutting
the Shell fuel facility. Utilizing this existing easement provides enhanced circulation for the
daycare pickup/drop-off and better accessibility for refuse/recycling haulers. Block B would
contain only three (3) driveways, which minimizes potential pedestrian conflicts with the
relatively large parcel. The unit lot subdivisions would gain vehicle access alleys.
H. Surface Mounted Utilities and Rooftop Equipment. Impacts related to rooftop equipment
and surface mounted utilities are currently unknown. Therefore, conditions of approval
require submission of plans subject to staff approval detailing how the equipment and
utilities are to be shielded from view.
I. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate school facilities and walking
conditions to and from school. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can
accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools:
Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Elementary and
High School students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The
stop is located at NE 12th St and Harrington Ave NE which is also the location of McKnight
Middle School. Middle School students would walk to school. The proposed project includes
the installation of new public streets within the development and frontage improvements
along the site’s periphery. All street improvements would include sidewalks. Students would
have a walking route to the bus stop with existing sidewalk improvements or installed as part
of the development. Students would connect to the abutting NE 12th St from Jefferson Ave
NE or NE 11th St/Harrington Place NE and walk west to Harrington Ave NE or they would
walk south from Jefferson Ave NE connecting to NE 10th St continue west to Harrington
Ave NE and walk north to NE 12th St.
A school impact fee would be required for the future dwellings. The current Renton School
District Impact Fee is $1,448 per multifamily dwelling unit. 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.
J. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and appropriate transit and
bicycle facilities.
As noted in the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3), the abutting bus stop to the site on
NE Sunset Blvd is likely to become a future RapidRide station. As conditioned in the initial
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
master plan, the Applicant is required to coordinate with King County Metro to provide
RapidRide infrastructure to the stop and to provide a temporary zone for transit riders while
the site is under construction.
As to bicycle parking, Block A contains 248 dwellings and 12,605 square feet of retail/eating
and drinking establishments requiring 40 parking spaces and therefore the Applicant would
be required to provide 128 bicycle parking spaces. Block B contains 307 dwelling units,
13,000 square feet of retail/eating and drinking establishments requiring 40 spaces, daycare
center requiring 10 spaces, and therefore the Applicant would be required to provide 169
bicycle parking spaces.
The Applicant’s development summary (Exhibit 16) identifies Block A would provide 124
spaces and Block B would provide 154 spaces, both insufficient to meet their respective code
requirements. Floor plans for Blocks A and B (Exhibits 19 and 20) indicate bicycle parking
on level one (1) of Block B but there is no delineated bicycle parking space in Block A.
Through correspondence with the Applicant’s architect, interior programming of Block A
remains underway during the site plan review and it is anticipated space would be provided
on the ground floor of Block A and/or distributed throughout the floors of the building. To
ensure adequate bicycle parking space is provided in Blocks A and B, a condition of approval
requires the Applicant to submit bicycle parking plans for Block A and Block B with their
respective building permit applications. The plans shall identify the correct number of
required bicycle parking spaces and provide graphic and narrative details of how the parking
meets the storage, security, and space standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11.a and b. The bicycle
parking plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to permit issuance.
K. Loading and Storage Areas. Loading and storage areas are adequately shielded from
view. Exterior storage and refuse/recycling areas are not proposed as these areas would
be located within the mixed-use buildings on Blocks A and B. Access to the service area
for Block A along Kirkland Ave NE is screened with landscaping. Block B service area
and daycare pick/drop-off is obscured from view by the abutting Shell fuel station and
perimeter landscaping along the NE 10th St frontage.
L. Parking. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking,
as the amount and design of parking is consistent with City regulations.
For the Master Site Plan level of review the Applicant has generally provided the
number of required parking spaces for the dwelling units and has accounted for parking
for future commercial uses. As noted at p. 15 of the staff report, the precise number of
parking spaces is currently unknown because the type of commercial space that will be
leased is unknown. However, the conditions of approval require submission of a
transportation demand management plan to iron out the remaining details to ensure that
parking meets City parking standards by the time of occupancy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
M. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping as the
Applicant has proposed a general conceptual landscaping plan that staff finds is
sufficient to be implemented to City standards during administrative site plan review.
The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 34) generally provides a 10-foot-wide landscape
strip along public street frontages as required by City standards. A reduced street
frontage landscaping approximately six (6) feet in width is shown on Block B between
the two (2) story townhomes and the Sunset Lane NE sidewalk to accommodate private
patio space. The landscaping regulations do not provide such an allowance and a
condition requires the Applicant to revise this area in the final landscaping plan and
provide the 10-foot width. No street frontage landscaping would be required along NE
Sunset Blvd as the setbacks are reduced and the buildings on Blocks A and B would be
constructed near the property line. Additionally, street frontage landscaping would not
be required on NE 11th St abutting the ground floor commercial spaces and at the
corners of NE 11th St and Sunset Lane NE as these areas are required walkways and
required pedestrian oriented open space. Compliance review of tree, shrub, and ground
cover species, quantity, size, and irrigation will occur with the civil construction permit
application’s final detailed landscaping plan.
Street improvements within the project and along it’s frontage will require an eight (8)
foot wide planter strip between the curb and sidewalk with street trees and groundcover.
Planter strips would be located on each side of Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St and
along the project’s frontage of Harrington Pl NE., NE 12th St., Kirkland Ave NE, and
NE Sunset Blvd. The planter strip along NE Sunset Blvd is separated from the sidewalk
to accommodate on street parking for ground floor commercial on Blocks A and B as
approved in the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3). Planter strips have been installed
on NE 10th St as part of the City’s capital improvement to the abutting area. The
conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 17) provide a general location and width of the
planter strips with areas of proposed street trees and groundcover. Several proposed
street tree species are not on the City Approved Street Tree List. Additionally, there
appears to be gaps in the planter strip with perpendicular paved areas along Sunset Lane
NE, NE 11th St., and Harrington Pl NE. These gaps will likely result in difficulty with
appropriate tree spacing and an overall reduction in street tree planting as competition
for adequate space already exists with utilities and street lighting. A condition of
approval requires these gaps to be removed.
N. Stormwater. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. A
Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by KPFF
Consulting Engineers, dated December 2020, was submitted 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 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. 4. The development is required to provide enhanced
water quality treatment prior to discharge. Project water quality treatment will consist
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
of conveyance to a series of bioretention facilities prior to connection to the proposed
new public conveyance system which will connect to the existing public conveyance
system. Additional analysis of the preliminary TIR can be found in the Advisory Notes
(Exhibit 47). A final TIR would be required with the civil construction permit
application.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and preliminary plats of 10 lots or more as Type III
applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies street modifications as Type I permits. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2)
requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure.”
Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, preliminary plat and street modification applications
are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), type III review is subject to hearing
and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Center Village (CV)
and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Street Modifications Findings and Conclusions. The staff
report doesn’t appear to identify what triggered the major examiner as opposed to minor administrative
review of the master plan application and/or plat amendment. RMC 4-9-200H identifies what changes
to a master plan trigger examiner as opposed to administrative review as does RMC 4-7-080M for plat
amendments. The most objective trigger is in RMC 4-9-200H2a, which provides that any increase in
scale that exceeds ten percent triggers major examiner review for master plans. As noted in Finding
of Fact No. 3, the parking for the overall master plan will be increased from 906 to 1,024 parking
spaces, which is more than a ten percent increase in scale. The plat review could simply be considered
as consolidated with the major master plan review if the plat revisions by themselves do not qualify
as major. In this regard, the applications have been properly presented as master site plan review, site
plan review, preliminary plat review and street modification.
RMC 4-9-200(B) authorizes master plan review as an option for all zones except the CA zone. The
Applicant has opted for master plan review and as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, site plan review is
also requested for Phases 1 and 2 of the proposal. Both master plan review and site plan review are
governed by the criteria of RMC 4-9-200(E), with the caveat that the criteria for master plan review
are to be evaluated “for general compliance with the criteria to ensure that nothing in the master plan
will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.” Chapter 4-7 RMC
governs the criteria for subdivision review. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and
applied through associated conclusions of law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
The street modification request identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250(D).
The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 27 of the staff report are adopted to conclude that the
proposal meets the criteria for the requested street modification.
Master Plan and Site Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. The criterion is met. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of
detail of master plan review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. The
level of detail for Blocks A and B (Phases 1 and 2) are appropriate to the more detailed level of site
plan review.
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.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 22 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with
Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report.
No development agreement applies to the project, although the Applicant and City have agreed to a
“Stand Still Agreement,” Ex. 4 and 49, which outline an agreed upon interpretation of City
development standards between Applicant and City, including vesting. The terms of that Agreement
have not been contested and it has not been found necessary to deviate from the agreed upon terms
for purposes of meeting applicable review criteria.
The City’s Environmental Review Committee determined the modification to the Solera Master Plan
and preliminary plat, Site Plan Review of Blocks A and B, and street modification qualify as a
Planned Action and the application meets the criteria outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance
(Ordinance #5813). The initial master plan (Exhibit 3) identified EIS mitigation measures in
Attachment B of the Planned Action that could be implemented for the proposal. The Applicant has
submitted a written narrative of applicable measures (Exhibit 41) and how they are incorporated into
the site plan application. Mitigation measures that did not contain a response and are typical
construction best practices such as erosion control, fill material sourcing, construction emission
control, and environmental health would be reviewed with the civil construction permit application
and ongoing with City inspectors during construction.
A comment was received on January 16, 2021 from the Duwamish Tribe recommending
archeological review to be performed for the project (Exhibit 10). The Planned Action EIS includes
the “Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery” that provides instruction
and sequence of events that is to occur should discovery be made. Additionally, the EIS contained a
Cultural Resources Survey Report that included the Sunset Court Apartments site directly abutting
the Solera site to the west. Five (5) shovel test pits were excavated and a pedestrian survey of the area
revealed no surface evidence of archeological deposits.
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;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(C), circulation by
FOF 6(D) and (E), loading and storage areas by FOF 6(K), views by FOF 5(E), landscaping by FOF
No. 5(C) and lighting by FOF 5(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(F). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 6(M) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. The
project provides for adequate vegetative retention by complying with the City’s tree retention
standards as addressed in FOF No. 5(B). Beyond tree retention, there are no other natural features in
need of protection at the project site, since there are no critical areas located at the project site as
determined in FOF No. 5(A).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. Access points are limited to side streets and alleys within the development.
A frontage road along NE Sunset Blvd separated by a planter strip would provide separation and
opportunity to park vehicles along the principal arterial. Internal circulation is safe and efficient for
the reasons outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Loading and delivery would be designed to comply with City
standards, including the standard quoted above, during administrative site plan review as outlined in
FOF No. 6(K). Transit and bicycle facilities are provided and comply with standards as identified in
FOF No. 6(J). Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as determined in FOF No.
6(D) in conjunction with the landscaping identified in FOF No. 6(M).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal does not block any view corridors to Mr. Rainier or shorelines
as determined in FOF No. 5(E).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), there are no natural systems
at the project site – the project site has no critical areas and almost the entire site is currently paved.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. As conditioned, the proposal will follow a detailed sequencing plan for phased construction as
identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and required by the criterion quoted above.
Subdivision
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
14. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 23 of the staff report is adopted by reference
as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will access a public road as depicted in the master plan map,
Ex. 2. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent
any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems as it is not located in a floodplain
critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. As determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
15. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 22 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
16. The internal roads connect to existing public roads as required by the criterion quoted above
and shown in the master plan, Ex. 2, for the project.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
17. City staff have reviewed the proposal for consistency with City road plans and found the
proposed roads to be consistent.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
18. There are no officially designated trails in the vicinity of the project.
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department
or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless
adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject
to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4 -3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 18
18
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area,
and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
19. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute
to flooding and there are no critical areas on-site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed.
Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. No lots
primarily composed of steep slopes will be created by the subdivision since there are no steep slopes
at the project site.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements
and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution.
20. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building
permit issuance. Also, as elaborated upon in FOF No. 6(C), the Applicant is proposing several open
space and recreational amenities that meets City open space standards.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
21. The criterion is met. The modified preliminary plat maintains the existing grid and connections
from the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3). Condition #22 requiring the Applicant to obtain
preliminary approval for the street vacation remains applicable and in effect with the modified
preliminary plat.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 19
19
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
22. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
23. The criterion is met. The only major arterial fronting the project is NE Sunset Blvd, which is
classified as a principal arterial. NE 12t St., the only other frontage arterial, is classified as a collector
arterial. The project avoids a direct connection to NE Sunset Blvd by the proposed frontage road.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
24. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved
the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and acceptable
street alignment.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within
and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads
and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 20
20
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within
subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
25. The criterion is met. The proposed subdivision is not a typical single-family residential
preliminary plat that would contain a rectangular grid with two-tiered lots, however the Solera Master
Plan does follow the intent and share traits of a two-tiered subdivision. The proposed subdivision
would result in four (4) blocks A, B, C, and D created by the north/south Sunset Lane NE and
east/west NE 11th St street improvements constructed by the Applicant. Blocks C and D would be
tiered by alleys A through G
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 21
21
26. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
27. Not applicable. All adjoining properties appear to be fully platted.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
28. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 2, the side lines are generally in conformance with the
requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
29. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
30. As previously determined, the proposal complies with the zoning code, which includes lot area
and width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
31. As shown in the plat map, Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
32. As conditioned.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 22
22
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
33. There are no significant on-site natural features.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision
development.
34. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed
to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
35. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The City’s stormwater standards, which are
addressed in the Applicant’s technical information report and will be further implemented during
administrative site plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted
above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
36. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 23
23
37. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any buildi ng. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final
ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the
subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
38. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
39. As conditioned.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 24
24
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law above, as conditioned below all applicable
review criteria for the Applicant’s master plan, site plan, preliminary plat and street modification are
met by the proposal. All permit applications are approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval from the LUA18-000490 Solera
Master Plan decision issued December 11, 2018 and reconsideration issued January 30,
2019 with the exception of the following conditions that are either removed due to their
inapplicability based on the modified master site plan or as modified:
a. The following conditions are no longer applicable and removed from the master plan
decision: Conditions 3,4,7, 20, 21, and 25.
b. The Applicant shall raise the ground floor of the units in the three (3) townhome unit
cluster buildings in Block D a minimum of three (3) feet above the grade of the NE
11th St and Harrington Pl NE sidewalk and provide an elevated stoop entrance for
each unit. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide articulation, materials, and
glazing, beyond what is required by the R-10 and R-14 Residential Design and Open
Space Standards, along the side elevations of the townhomes facing the street that is
similar to a front elevation. These ground level features and additional exterior side
wall articulation shall be shown on the elevation plans submitted with the
Administrative Site Plan Review application for Block D to be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager (Modified Condition #5).
c. The Applicant shall submit open space plans for Block C and Block D that clearly
indicates the amount of common open space meeting the standards of RMC 4-2-
115E.2 or where applicable RMC 4-1-240B.3, if approved. Any approved fee-in-
lieu shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit on the respective block.
The open space plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to the Block C and Block D site plan issuance. (Modified
Condition #11).
d. The Applicant shall complete the project phases in the sequence of the updated
phasing plan as provided in Exhibit 15. If market rate and affordable units are not
distributed as identified in the Standstill Agreement, but are instead one (1)
standalone market rate block and one (1) standalone affordable block, then the
standalone market rate block shall be Phase 1. Phase 3 townhome construction shall
not begin until the building permits for Blocks A and B Phase 1 have been paid for
by the Applicant and issued by the City. One block of Phase 3 townhome
construction (north or south of NE 11th St) may begin following building permit
issuance of Phase 1. The second block of Phase 3 townhomes may begin following
building permit issuance for the second mixed use building in Phase 2. Certificates
of occupancy for the townhomes will not be issued until the podium and framing for
Blocks A and B Phase 1 have has passed inspection. (Modified Condition #18)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 25
25
e. The Applicant shall submit a street modification request with the Site Plan Review
applications for Block C and Block D to modify the Unit Lot Drive standards and
provide the private alley sections as shown on the townhome unit lot subdivision.
The street modification decision shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager with the Site Plan decision(s). (Modified Condition #19)
2. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plans with the building permit applications for
Block A and Block B that provide at least one ground floor commercial space in each of
Block A and B with grease traps and ventilation shafts for a commercial kitchen
hood/exhaust; central plumbing line; and ADA compliant bathrooms shall be provided for
all commercial ground floor space which may be provided through the use of common
facilities. The revised floor plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
3. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan per the submittal requirements set
forth in RMC 4-8-120D.12 and that meets the applicable landscaping standards set forth in
RMC 4-4-070 with the civil construction permit application. The detailed landscaping plan
shall incorporate street frontage landscaping 10-feet in width along Jefferson Lane NE
abutting the two-story townhomes on Block B where it is shown deficient on the conceptual
landscaping plan (Exhibit 17). The detailed landscaping plan shall provide a full and
continuous planter strip void of the perpendicular paved sections, except where approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager, to aid in consistent street tree spacing and to
achieve maximum planting capacity. Street tree spacing and planting capacity shall take
preference over stormwater bioretention facilities. The Applicant shall coordinate with the
Current Planning Project Manager with selection of street tree species from the City’s
Approved Street Tree List. The detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
4. The Applicant shall provide a tree replacement exhibit as a component of the detailed
landscape plan to be submitted with the civil construction permit application. The exhibit
shall provide a table that includes the species, quantity, caliper inch of each replacement
tree and corresponding plan of where those trees will be planted on the site. The tree
replacement exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
5. The Applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan with the civil
construction permit application. The plan’s primary purpose shall be to ensure residents of
Solera are provided with off-street parking spaces for their registered vehicles with a
secondary purpose of providing incentives for non-single occupancy vehicle trips. The plan
shall guarantee a minimum of one (1) parking space for each unit in Blocks A and B via an
assigned and numbered space. Remaining spaces may be allocated to residents that have an
additional vehicle and for guest parking. The Applicant shall ensure that residents have an
assigned parking space for every vehicle owned by the resident intended to be kept onsite
via specific language in the resident rental agreement. The management of each building
shall ensure that residents utilize the parking spaces in the garage instead of public on-street
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 26
26
parking. The plan shall ensure- rental agreement shall include language that residents do not
park any of their registered vehicles on the public street within ¼ mile of the site and the
rental agreement shall indicate penalties for not utilizing the Solera parking garage. The
plan shall provide trip reducing measures such as subsidized transit fares, vanpool/
carpooling services, and commuter center. The plan shall also include a joint use parking
arrangement that provides resident and guest parking in onsite commercial spaces during
their respective business off-peak hours. The plan and specific language of the rental
agreement as it relates to the intent for all resident parking provided within their respective
assigned spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to permit issuance.
6. The Applicant shall submit bicycle parking plans for Block A and Block B with their
respective building permit applications. The plans shall identify the correct number of
required bicycle parking spaces and provide graphic and narrative details of how the parking
meet the storage, security, and space standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11.a and b. The bicycle
parking plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to permit issuance.
7. The Applicant shall submit a revised fencing plan with the civil construction permit
application that provides material details, height, and location of fencing on the master site
plan. The fencing shall be consistent, high-quality, and commensurate to the materials that
are used throughout the development. The fencing material shall be wood, ornamental, or
comparable material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Chain link
fencing shall not be accepted. The revised fencing plan shall be reviewed and approved by
the Current Planning Project Manager prior permit issuance.
8. The Applicant shall submit material and exterior finish details for the retaining wall and
four (4) foot guard rails with the civil construction permit application. Materials and exterior
finishes of the walls shall meet the retaining wall standards and provide an anti -graffiti
coating. Guard rails on top of the retaining wall shall provide high visibility to and from the
public sidewalk with materials and aesthetic treatments that are consistent with the gateway
entry to the development. The retaining wall and guard rail details shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
9. The Applicant shall submit revised south elevations for Block B for the façade not obscured
by the Shell fuel facility with the building permit application. The elevations shall provide
entry and facade features for the daycare and office entry that are identifiable and that are
similar in architectural character as other entrances and ground level facades on Blocks A
and B. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
10. The Applicant shall widen the pedestrian pathway from the NE 10th sidewalk to the daycare
entrance to a minimum of five (5) feet in width on plans submitted with the civil
construction permit application. The revised width shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
11. The Applicant shall submit detail sheets and quantities of all street and open space furniture
including but not limited to planters, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, bike
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 27
27
racks, pergolas, and outdoor recreation equipment. The detail sheets and quantities shall be
integrated in the detailed landscape plan submitted with the civil construction permit to be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
12. The Applicant shall submit graphic verification that weather protection for Blocks A and B
extend a at least 4.5 feet from the buildings along 75-percent of the facades facing the street
and/or a narrative of how the proposed weather protection meets the intent and guidelines
of the Pedestrian Environment section of the Urban Design Regulations with the building
permit application. The verification and narrative shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
13. The Applicant shall submit a pedestrian oriented space exhibit as a component of the
detailed landscaping plan submitted with the civil construction permit. The exhibit shall
provide paving details for plazas and other onsite pedestrian areas that are composed of
scored concrete, pavers, stone, or comparable material approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager. The exhibit shall also provide photometric lighting calculations for
pedestrian oriented spaces that provide at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground
or meet the intent and guidelines of the Recreation and Open Space section of the Urban
Design Regulations. A written narrative shall accompany the exhibit identifying how the
delineated pedestrian-oriented spaces noted on the plan meet the meet the RMC defined
criteria. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to permit issuance.
14. The Applicant shall submit revised elevation plans with the building permit applications
that replaces the blank walls located on the NE 11th St and Kirkland Ave NE frontage along
Block A and the NE 11th St frontage for Block B with glazing or other architectural
detailing or provide justification of a required or unavoidable blank wall with treatment as
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
15. The Applicant shall submit a revised lighting plan with the building permit application for
Block A and Block B that includes detail sheets of all light fixtures and their supports.
Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled and consistent with the design of the site
and provide adequate foot-candle illumination in pedestrian areas as shown on a revised
photometric calculation. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
16. The Applicant shall submit a rooftop equipment exhibit with the elevation plans associated
with Block A and Block B building permit applications. The exhibit shall provide cross
section details and identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary
to architecture of the buildings. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager.
17. The Applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details
with the civil construction permit application associated with Blocks A and B. The
Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located
out of public ROW view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required
landscaping areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening measures consistent with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 28
28
the overall design of the development. The surface mounted utility plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
18. The Applicant shall submit revised site and floor plans with the building permit applications
for Block A and Block B that detail marked loading and delivery areas that do not conflict
with parking and pedestrian areas for each block. The revised plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
19. The Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the civil
construction permit application that provides analysis of the northbound and southbound I-
405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. The revised TIA shall also provide a
correction to the total number of units in Blocks A and B and correction to the total square
footage of retail space. The revised TIA shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
20. The Applicant shall coordinate with City staff regarding the circulation pattern of the NE
Sunset Blvd frontage road abutting the angled parking during review of the civil
construction permit. The final circulation plan shall be approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager and Development Review Engineer prior to permit issuance.
21. Any changes to the approved project require a major modification or a minor modification.
The following determines whether a proposed change will be reviewed as a major
modification or a minor modification:
a. Proposed project changes will be reviewed as a major modification (in other words, as
a new application) unless they meet the scope for a minor modification, below.
b. Proposed project changes will be reviewed as a minor modification by administrative
determination, if the proposed changes do not:
i. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase or decrease in any
measurable aspect of the approved plan such as, but not limited to, area,
scale, building height, density, commercial area, amenities, public or private
open space, landscaping, parking spaces, building materials (e.g., glazing)
etc.;
ii. Have a substantially greater impact on the environment and/or public
facilities than the approved plan;
iii. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan; and
iv. Substantially alter a key feature of the approved plan.
22. The Applicant shall receive preliminary approval of any necessary street vacation(s) from
City Council prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. Final approval of the street
vacation(s) shall be completed prior to plat recording.
23. All road names shall be approved by the City.
24. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each
lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 29
29
25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the
Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all
street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
26. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Public Works Department. Such
installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material.
Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by
the Public Works Department.
27. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or
landowner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development.
Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company
shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and
certify to the City that it is properly installed.
28. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
Decision issued February 18, 2021.
Hearing Examiner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 30
30
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.