Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2021 - REVISED HEX Final Decision - Cedar River Apartment1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Cedar River Apartments Master Plan, Hearing Examiner Site Plan, and Substantial Development Permit LUA19-000161, SSDP, SA-M, SA-H RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary SRM Development, LLC, has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a proposed phased mixed -use development located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway that includes 481 attached dwelling units, 4,842 square feet of ground floor retail and a 25,000 square foot office building. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1-55 identified at page 2 of the August 10, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the August 10, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the August 10, 2021 public hearing as well: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 Exhibit 56 Staff power point Exhibit 57 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data Exhibit 58 Google Maps Emails from Clark Close and Ray Liaw dated August 12, 2021 are admitted as Exhibits 59 and 60 respectively. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. James D. Rivard, SRM Development, LLC, 720 6th St S, Ste 200, Kirkland, WA 98033. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject application at 11 am on August 10, 2021, Zoom Meeting ID No. 854 7111 4126. The hearing was left open through August 12, 2021 for the parties to resolve some issues pertaining to staff recommended Condition No. 1(d). Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a proposed phased mixed-use development located at 1915 Maple Valley Highway that includes 481 attached dwelling units, 4,842 square feet of ground floor retail and a 25,000 square foot office building. The completed project would provide approximately 761 vehicle parking spaces with 56 of those spaces within a surface parking area and the remainder provided as structured parking within the residential and office buildings. The Applicant proposes shoreline restoration that includes the retention of approximately 34 trees and construction of pedestrian trails near the Cedar River within the boundaries of the subject property. The Applicant has requested fill activities in the 100-year flood plain along the Cedar River that would be mitigated via onsite compensatory flood storage. The project site is 12.5 acres in size. The Applicant is proposing to develop the site in three (3) phases. The proposal would include a two- phased five story building. A third phase would include a 25,000 square foot office building. There would be a total of three stand-alone buildings: residential (Building A), mixed-use residential with commercial retail space (Building B), and medical office (Building C). As shown on the proposed phasing plan, the Applicant proposes a sequence to construct each building (Exhibit 5). The first two (2) phases would include 481 multifamily dwelling units and 4,852 square feet of commercial retail space in Buildings A and B. Phase 1 would develop approximately seventy percent (70%) percent of the site and Phase 2 would include development of twenty one percent (21%) of the site. Phase 3 would develop the remaining nine percent (9%) of the project and it would include a 25,000 square feet of medical office building located north of Phases 1 and 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 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 4. Surrounding Uses. The project site is surrounded by public and commercial use. The Renton Community Center, Henry Moses Aquatic Center, Cedar River Park and the Renton Community Center are some of the public uses within the vicinity. Residential use is located across adjoining Maple Highway to the east. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. A State Environmental Policy Act Mitigated Determination of Non-significance was issued for the project on June 17, 2021 with eight mitigation measures designed to eliminate significant adverse impacts. See Ex. 50. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Structure Placement and Scale. As conditioned, the structure placement and scale are not expected to create undue adverse impact on the adjacent uses and is designed to protect privacy and reduce noise for on- and off-site occupants and to maintain compatibility with existing development and surrounding uses. The site layout arranges the buildings with larger densities and scale near the southern portion of the lot, along the waterfront, and transitions to a smaller scale and lower building heights closer to the public right-of-way. Setbacks along the east and west ends of Buildings A and B provide for privacy and noise reduction. Once completed, the mixed-use buildings would provide privacy and noise reductions for outdoor use along the waterfront. B. Views. No obstruction of existing views of natural features are anticipated, including view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. The proposed apartment building design includes a five-story building approximately 67 feet above the finished elevation of the building. The apartment buildings would be some of the tallest structures in the area and they are located adjacent to the Cedar River. However, the proposal includes shoreline access and view corridors that mitigate against this view impact. The Applicant provided a view corridor study (Exhibit 54) with the master site plan application. According to the study, there are no trails on or near the subject property and no views to the Cedar River shoreline from the project frontages along the public rights-of-way. The site is mostly bordered with landscape screening prohibiting views. As part of Phases 1 and 2, the Applicant is proposing two (2) full view corridors from the right-of-way on either side of the project. There is an additional view corridor in the middle of the project through its glass wall entry and leasing office. These view corridors are anticipated to provide views of the adjacent treed hillside on the south side of the river. In addition, the proposal would include access to the 100-foot buffer located along the approximately 1,400 feet south frontage along the Cedar River. This shoreline buffer would be revegetated to a more natural state to improve the overall natural habitat of the site. In addition, the shoreline restoration plans include a new meandering public trail along the river providing continuous views of the river and shoreline with access from Maple Valley Highway and Cedar River Park Dr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. Territorial views may be available from upper floors of the apartment buildings. C. Noise, light and glare. The proposal will not create any significant noise, light or glare impacts. The conditions of approval require the submission of a lighting plan. Implementation of the plan will ensure compliance with the City’s light and glare standards and are construed as adequately mitigating against light and glare impacts. The proposal is not anticipated to generate any significant noise impacts since the proposed use is residential and office. Setbacks along the east and west ends of Buildings A and B provide for privacy and noise reduction. Once completed, the mixed-use buildings would provide privacy and noise reduction for outdoor use along the waterfront. D. Screening. As conditioned, unattractive site features will be adequately screened from view. The Applicant did not provide sufficient details of roof or surface mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment with the land use application. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a special utility and landscape plan set that includes cross-section details identifying how all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment would be screened from public view. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public right-of-way view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. E. Fencing and Retaining Walls. Proposed fencing will not create any significant impacts. As conditioned, all proposed fencing is lower than eight feet and does not block landscaping or serve as a traffic hazard. The project site includes existing shoreline armoring along the subject property consisting of an approximately 15-foot to 20-foot (15’-20’) tall concrete bulkhead extending east from the settling pond. The toe of the bulkhead wall consists of mass concrete along the base with concrete blocks stacked vertically and embedded into the mass. To the west of the settling pond the shoreline bank slopes gradually to where a retaining wall is located. An old chain link fence (appears to be four feet (4’) in height) is located on top of the concrete wall and retaining wall along the length of the shoreline. The parcel contains inconsistent perimeter chain link fencing with heights ranging from approximately four- to eight-foot (4’-8’) with barbwire placed on top of some of fencing. The location of the exiting chain link fencing would stand in or in front of the required landscaping and therefore the eight feet (8’) tall fencing would exceed the height limitations. Furthermore, the chain link fencing is not a quality material commensurate with the rest of the development. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a detail 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 F. Natural Features. The proposal will not adversely affect any natural features. The only natural feature of the project site is the Cedar River shoreline and that area is adequately protected by the City’s shoreline regulations. The majority of the existing parcel is generally void of any meaningful vegetation with the exception of areas along the shoreline. The proposed project improvements would occur within impervious areas formerly used as a concrete facility. The total impervious surface of the area will actually be decreased as a result of the proposal. The shoreline area will largely remain in its native state as it will be within the shoreline buffer. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to protect the natural landscape by retaining 34 trees along the shoreline. The geotechnical report for the project, Ex. 19, identified slope areas along the Cedar River that are generally present due to natural stream processes as the river has eroded and steepened the upland soils. Isolated sensitive slopes upland of the river would be leveled during site grading to support the proposed development. A protected slope along the southeastern portion of the property would not be impacted as most of the area is within the 100-foot OHWM buffer area. No proposed structure encroachments are proposed within the protected slope or its 15-foot setback. G. Landscaping. Aesthetic, noise, light and privacy impacts will be minimized by existing and proposed landscaping. As shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 4), street frontage landscaping is provided along the site’s perimeter with the exception of pedestrian areas. Overall, staff have concluded that the proposed preliminary landscape plan provides adequate transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and would generally enhance the appearance of the project. H. Critical Areas. The proposal will not create significant adverse impacts to critical areas. The critical areas identified at the project site are each assessed individually below. All impacts to the critical areas are found to be adequately mitigated as the Applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of staff that with staff recommended conditions (all adopted by this Decision), the critical areas are mitigated to the extent required by the City’s critical area regulations. 1. Steep Slopes. As previously identified in Finding of Fact No. 5F, there is a protected slope along the southeastern portion of the property. The slope is adequately protected as most of the slope is within the 100-foot OHWM buffer area and no proposed structure encroachments are proposed within the protected slope or its 15-foot setback. 2. Flood Hazard. The site is mapped with Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA Zone – AE) and Severe Channel Migration Zone. The proposal adequately mitigates the flood hazard area by increasing flood storage capacity as outlined below. The Applicant has also demonstrated that it is not actually within a channel migration zone. The project area also encroaches into a floodway, but no fill would occur within the floodway. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 An existing bulkhead is located along the southern boundary except for the far western portion of the property. As shown on the Flood Boundary Map and Compensatory Storage Plan (Exhibits 12 and 13), the Applicant proposes to fill portions of the subject property’s floodplain to accommodate the location of the proposed building and infrastructure. The Applicant has also submitted a Conditional Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (CLOMR-F) form (Exhibit 26) that, if approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, would result in the building’s exclusion from the flood hazard area as indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map. The Compensatory Storage Plan (Exhibit 13) proposes approximately 883 cubic yards of fill to be placed within the existing floodplain. To compensate for the loss of existing flood storage, the Applicant proposes to excavate approximately 1,374 cubic yards and to grade additional areas southwest of the building to provide additional compensatory flood storage. Additionally, the river side wall of the settling pond is proposed to be reduced thereby providing approximately 2,126 cubic yards of flood storage. The net increase in flood storage with the floodplain excavation and settling pond storage results in 2,616 cubic yards. The Applicant’s proposal would maintain a minimum 100-foot setback for Buildings A and B from the OHWM. Within the setback area, the Applicant has proposed shoreline habitat restoration and pedestrian access amenities (Exhibits 14-18) to mitigate impacts to the Cedar River floodplain. The Applicant submitted a Channel Migration Risk Assessment, provided by The Watershed Company (dated April 8, 2020; Exhibit 25). The analysis found that no geomorphic or photogrammatic indicators of a historical migration area since the construction of the Seattle City Light Masonry Dam and that based on the analysis there is no evidence to support a channel migration hazard on the subject property. The memo concludes that the channel migration zone mapped by King County is based on unarmored areas of the Cedar River and thereby would not apply to the subject property. 3. Shoreline. The project site is located along the shore of the Cedar River. The proposal adequately protects against any impacts to the Cedar River as project impacts will result in no net loss of ecological function. Overall, shoreline impacts are anticipated to be minimal because the proposal will be built in an already developed area away from the shoreline. The proposed project would be confined to the former Stoneway Sand and Gravel Company property and only a lim ited number of trees would be removed. The Applicant’s proposal would maintain a minimum 100-foot setback for Buildings A and B from the OHWM. Within the setback area, the Applicant has proposed shoreline habitat restoration and pedestrian access amenities within the Cedar River buffer which is currently significantly degraded (Exhibits 14-18). The Applicant’s Critical Areas Report, prepared by The Watershed Company dated October 2018 (Exhibit 27), states vegetation is limited to few areas with much of the property consisting of compacted gravel. As a component of Phase 1 of the Master Plan (Exhibit 5), the Applicant proposes restoration of the riparian buffer as identified in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 Shoreline Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 15). Proposed vegetation would include native species suitable for high visibility, view preservation, and forested conditions. Bioswale and meadow planting would be located in stormwater areas in and around the settling ponds, respectively. The Applicant would also regrade the riparian area and construct passive trails and as shown on the Shoreline Grading and Trail Plan (Exhibit 16). All development is proposed outside of the shoreline buffer and Cedar River habitat conservation area, with the exception of a public access trail and associated public access areas along the shoreline, and the shoreline buffer would be restored with native plantings to provide a net improvement over the existing condition and provide screening between the upland development and the river. In addition, the floodplain area would be graded to result in a net increase in floodplain storage capacity and no fill would occur within the floodway. As a result, no adverse effects on floodplain habitat function or the species they support are expected to occur. According to the report, the proposal seeks to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to ensure no net loss of ecological functions and processes. The project proposes revegetation of the buffer, has been designed to meet code requirements and would protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat and other shoreline functions. Shoreline processes would be maintained or improved though the addition of native vegetation in the riparian area. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no net loss of ecological functions and has values consistent with the City of Renton’s Shoreline Master Program. 4. Aquifer Recharge Area. The site is located in Wellhead Protection Zone 1. The aquifer is adequately protected as the proposal complies with the City’s Zone 1 regulations. Areas within the Zone 1 designation are lands situated between a well or wellfield owned by the City and the 365-day groundwater travel time contour. Infiltration devices are not allowed in Zone 1. No infiltration is proposed and the proposal does not include any other prohibited activities identified in the City’s Zone 1 regulations. I. Compatibility/Overconcentration. The proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and does not represent an overconcentration of use. The proposed project would be constructed over three (3) phases. The site plan includes higher intensity uses (medical office and commercial retail) along or closer to the public streets and the less intensive uses (multi-family) along the back or rear portions of the lot. The project transitions in height between phases with generally lower building heights closer to the public streets. The transition in scale across the development provides a development pattern that avoids over scaling and overconcentration of the development in any particular portion of the site. The apartment buildings would be constructed during phases 1 and 2 and the future medical office building would be constructed during phase 3. Most of the site would be fully developed after the first two initial phases (approximately 92% of the site). The proposal also doesn’t represent an overconcentration of multifamily housing at its proposed location because there are no similar multifamily developments within proximity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 8 8 of the site. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the majority of surrounding uses are public with some residential use located across the adjoining Maple Valley Highway. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The proposal will be served by adequate water and sewer. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. B. Fire and Police. The proposal will be served by adequate police and fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. C. Drainage. Adequate drainage facilities are proposed. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR) (Exhibit 29), which proposes a drainage system that staff has found as conditioned to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM) and other City stormwater standards. Conformance to the RSWDM and associated standards establishes adequate provision for drainage. The TIR proposes that targeted pollution generating impervious surfaces would be treated via three (3) Filterra system units. Flows from the water quality units and non-pollution generating surfaces are proposed to be piped with two (2) outfalls on the Cedar River, one (1) outfall located in the former location of the washout basin and one (1) outfall approximately 385-feet to the west. On June 17, 2021, the Environmental Review Committee issued mitigation measure for the Applicant to submit a Final Technical Information Report (TIR) with the civil construction permit application that includes qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The analysis must provide justification for the currently proposed stormwater improvements, or if needed, an amended proposal to comply with the conservation plan as it relates to salmon health, habitat, and effects from the project’s stormwater discharge into the Cedar River. The analysis and any amendments to the proposed stormwater improvements would be required to comply with the conservation plan. Review and approval of the Final Technical Information Report (TIR) would be completed by the Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to permit issuance. During site construction, the Applicant would be required to implement temporary erosion and sediment control measures. Such measures would include but ar e not limited to silt fences, conveyance swales, check dams, a sediment pond with a liner, catch basin inserts, mulching of exposed areas, and dust control. D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parks and open space. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 9 9 Under City regulations, the 481 dwelling units located within Buildings A and B would result in a combined minimum common open/recreation space area of 24,050 square feet. As shown on the landscaping plan (Exhibit 4), the Applicant is proposing approximately 42,000 square feet of exterior open space in the form of courtyards and approximately 6,000 square feet of outdoor recreation space for basketball and tennis. Floor plans for Buildings A and B (Exhibits 6 and 7) provide approximately 12,400 square feet of combined interior recreation facilities in the form of gyms and lounges. Passive and active recreation is provided on courtyards, shoreline trails, and multi -purpose sports courts throughout the development. These open space areas serve as multiple focal points for the proposed large-scale development. E. Transportation. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. The proposed vehicular access points would be limited to a single street connection to Cedar River Dr and one (1) driveway connection to Maple Valley Highway. The proposal provides a safe and efficient circulation pattern for both vehicles and pedestrians within the site. Internal pedestrian connections to the public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to abutting sites. The project’s internal public street alignment, located between the medical office building and the apartment buildings, allows for safe transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Pedestrian walkways, internal to the development, would link guests to the public sidewalk system. Further, a condition of approval requires that the surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces be either concrete, unit pavers, or similar material. The proposal adequately accommodates loading and delivery areas and appropriately hides them from view. A separate access to the loading and unloading areas, screen by landscaping from the public street, would be provided for each multi-family building. The loading area for each building is sufficient in size and location to support the proposed multi-family buildings. The site plan provides for a minimum of forty-five feet (45') of clear maneuvering area from the internal street and parking lot in front of each door. Congestion and other transportation impacts were assessed in the Applicant’s traffic study, Ex. 31. The traffic study was subject to peer review. Key findings from the traffic analysis indicate all six (6) study intersections would operate a LOS D or better during AM and PM peak hours with the exception of Bronson Way N/Houser Way N which would operate a LOS F (with and without the project). In addition, the N 3rd St/Sunset Blvd N intersection would drop from LOS D to LOS E with the addition of the project related traffic in the peak hour. As a result of the anticipated LOS changes, the peer review analysis recommended mitigation focused on improving performance and reliability of the signal system at the Cedar River Park Dr/Maple Valley Highway intersection and along the Maple Valley Highway corridor in the immediate vicinity of the site utilizing an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS). The adaptive system known as Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 10 10 (SCOOT) would mitigate the project’s impact to vehicle queuing, intersection operations, and vehicle hours of delay along Maple Valley Highway. Furthermore, the peer review also recommended traffic calming measures within the Cedar River Park parking lot to discourage project related traffic from utilizing the Cedar River Park parking lot to bypass congestion around the I-405 interchange. The peer review recommendations were adopted into the SEPA MDNS mitigation measures. Impacts to system wide transportation network will be mitigated via imposition of traffic impact fees pursuant to the terms of the City’s transportation impact fee ordinance. The proposal has also passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit 23), which is another congestion standard adopted by the City. The City’s concurrency standard 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 traffic impact fees. F. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transit and bicycle facilities. Transit service in the region is provide by the King County Department of Transportation (Metro Transit). There are two routes that run along SR 169 in the vicinity of the site (Routes 907 and 143). The proposal would not alter current transit services. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces for medical office and one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per one attached dwelling unit. The submitted attached residential floor plans (Exhibit 8) indicates several bicycle rooms within level 1. However, not enough detail was provided to identify quantities or other bicycle parking standards of the code and therefore a condition of approval requires the Applicant to demonstrate compliance in its building permit plans. G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking. The Applicant proposes 761 parking spaces, which is consistent with the range of parking required and allowed by applicable City parking standards. Parking regulations require that a minimum of 1 parking space be proved per attached dwelling unit with a maximum of 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Parking regulations for commercial activities require a minimum and maximum of 5.0 per 1,000 square feet of net floor area for medical offices and a required minimum and maximum of 2.5 per 1,000 square feet of net floor area for retail sales. The Applicant is proposing a combined total of 761 vehicle parking spaces when all phases of the development are completed. Phases 1 and 2 (Buildings A and B) would provide 645 structured parking spaces and Phase 3 (future medical office building) would provide sixty (60) below grade structured parking spaces. In addition to structured parking areas, an additional fifty-six (56) surface parking spaces would be provided onsite. Together, all three (3) uses would be required to provide a minimum of 618 parking spaces up to a maximum of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 11 11 979 parking spaces. The full buildout of 761 vehicle parking spaces would comply with the allowed range of parking requirements. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies shoreline substantial development permits as Type II 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/Design District Designations. The subject property is zoned and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR). The parcel is also subject to Urban Design District C. 3. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-200(B) requires master plan approval for all development in the COR zone except for airplane manufacturing, large lot subdivisions, SEPA exempt projects and utilities. Hearing examiner site plan review is required for any development involving over 100 attached dwelling units in the COR zone. See RMC 4-9-200B2; D2i. Shoreline substantial development permits are required for any nonexempt development within 200 feet of shorelines pursuant to RMC 4-9-190(B)(3). The criteria for master plan and site plan review are set by RMC 4-9-200(E), with the criteria the same for both but applied at a broader conceptual level for master plan review. The criteria for shoreline substantial development permits is set by RMC 4-9-190(B)(7), which requires compliance with all City of Renton Shoreline Master Program (“SMP”) use regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Site Plan and Master 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 12 12 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. Since the Applicant is applying concurrently applying for both master plan and site plan review, the more detailed application of site plan review criteria will ensure compliance with the more general application of the criteria for master plan review. The Conclusions of Law in this decision apply the review criteria at the site plan application level of detail and that is found to support the overall conclusion that the proposal complies with master plan review criteria as well. 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. 171 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 18 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “C” and consistent with Design District “C” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 19 of the staff report. No planned action ordinance or development agreement applies. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; 1 References to findings in the staff report are designed by “Finding No. _____.” References to findings from this recommendation are “FOF No. _____.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 13 13 ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation and loading areas by FOF 6(E), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(G) and lighting by FOF 5(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(A). Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(G) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 14 14 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(E), access is consolidated into a single street connection to Cedar River Dr and one driveway connection to Maple Valley Highway. The proposal will provide for safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(E). Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined by a separate access point as outlined in FOF No. 6(E). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No. 6(F). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(D). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for three view corridors to the Cedar River as well as shoreline access to the river as determined in FOF No. 5(B). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5F and 5H. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 15 15 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 FOF 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. The criterion is met. The Applicant has submitted a detailed phasing plan as summarized in FOF No. 3. Shoreline Permit RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee must find that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria: a. All regulations of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance. b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation and the type of use or development activity proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. A reasonable proposal that cannot fully conform to these policies may be permitted, provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and intent of the Shoreline Master Program. c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall also be adhered to. 14. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed in Finding No. 22 of the staff report. The most important and pervasive requirement in the City’s shoreline regulations and policies, reflecting state shoreline priorities, is that the proposal result in no net loss of ecological function. As determined in FOF No. 5H3, the proposal meets that standard. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 16 16 DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the Applicant’s master plan, site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications are met by the proposal and the applications are approved subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated June 17, 2021. a. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Terracon Consultants Inc., dated October 31, 2018 and any future addenda. b. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical report(s). The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report(s). c. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall provide notes on the construction and building permit plans identifying when onsite geotechnical engineer supervision of construction events is recommended. d. The Applicant shall submit a Final Technical Information Report (TIR) with the civil construction permit application that includes qualitative and quantitative analysis demonstrating compliance with the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. The analysis shall provide justification for the currently proposed stormwater improvements, or if needed, an amended proposal to comply with the conservation plan as it relates to salmon health, habitat, and effects from the project’s stormwater discharge into the Cedar River. The analysis and any amendments to the proposed stormwater improvements needed to comply with the conservation plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Development Engineering Plan Reviewer prior to permit issuance. This Condition 1(d) should be applied as outlined in the Ex. 59. e. The Applicant shall submit an archeological survey prepared by a qualified professional with the civil construction permit application. Consultation with Concerned Tribes shall occur prior to survey activities. Based on the results and recommendations of the survey, an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan and onsite monitoring during construction activities by a professional archeologist funded by the Applicant may be required. f. The Applicant shall reconfigure the northbound Cedar River Park Drive to provide dual left turn lanes with a shared right turn lane (curb lane). To support this new channelization, the Applicant shall install signal detection, signal head modifications, and overhead signage on the east side mast-arm at the intersection of Cedar River Park Drive and Maple Valley Highway. The Applicant shall submit plans to construct these off-site improvements with the civil construction permit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 17 17 application to be reviewed and approved by Development Engineering and Transportation staff prior to permit issuance. g. The Applicant shall fully fund the installation and configuration of the Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique (SCOOT) along intersections impacted by the proposal including NE 3rd Street/Monterey Drive NE and those identified in the Cedar River Apartments Independent Transportation and Mitigation Analysis (Exhibit 34) prepared by Transpo Group dated May 7, 2021. Installation, configuration, and operation of the SCOOT system shall occur prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first building. h. The Applicant shall identify and propose potential traffic calming measures to be located within the Cedar River Park parking lot to discourag e project related cut- through traffic. The traffic calming proposal shall be coordinated and approved by the Community Services Department. Approved traffic calming measures shall be installed prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first building. 2. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan per the submittal requirements set forth in RMC 4-8-120.D.12 that meets the applicable standards set forth in RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping with the civil construction permit application. 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. 3. The Applicant shall install ten feet (10’) of temporary on-site landscaping along the public street frontages of the Phase 3 development site. Such landscaping shall include a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Installation of the temporary landscaping shall be completed as part of Phase 2 unless a construction or building permit for Phase 3 has been applied for. A final detailed landscape plan shall be provided to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 4. The Applicant shall be required to provide a detailed irrigation plan with the civil construction permit application. The detailed irrigation plan shall be provided to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall submit a special utility and landscape plan set that includes cross- section details identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment and identify how they would be screened from public view. 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 special utility and landscape plan set shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit and/or building permit approval. 6. The Applicant shall provide a detailed refuse and recycling pick-up plan. The final detailed plan shall also be provided to the City’s contracted refuse and recycling hauler (currently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 18 18 Republic Services) with any correspondence to and from the hauler provided to the Current Planning Project Manager. 7. The Applicant shall provide bicycle parking for up to 242 stalls (one of which shall be for the commercial retail space) and indicate compliance with bicycle parking standards on the floor plans submitted with the building permit application. Bicycle parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 8. The Applicant shall submit revised building elevations and floor plans that clearly indicate a minimum ten feet (10') setback for a fifth story above the preceding story or an equivalent development standard that enhances the character of the building. The revised building elevations and floor plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 9. The Applicant shall submit a detail 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. 10. The Applicant shall submit a detailed entrance and courtyard plan that includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. A revised detailed entrance and courtyard plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 11. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations for Buildings A and B. The revised elevations shall provide prominent entry features that distinguish the residential entrances from the commercial entrances and are architecturally compatible. The revised building elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 12. The Applicant shall provide the paving material as scored concrete or comparable material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. A detailed fire lane design plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 13. The Applicant shall provide pedestrian sidewalks on the south and west side of Phase 3 as part of the Phase 1 and 2. The civil plans would be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance. 14. The Applicant shall provide a raised crosswalk or a crosswalk out of different materials from the abutting paving material within the drive aisle as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. A detailed crosswalk design plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 19 19 15. The Applicant shall submit detail sheets and quantities of all outdoor site furniture and amenities, including, but not limited to, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, pet relief areas/disposal, 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. but not limited to benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, 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. 16. The Applicant shall submit graphic verification that weather protection is at least four and one-half feet (4 ½’) from the building and along five percent (75%) of the commercial retail façades facing the interior 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. 17. The Applicant shall provide one (1) additional color, pattern, or textural change to the exterior façade. Revised architectural elevations and a materials board with color chips shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 18. The Applicant shall submit an overall sign design package for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the approval of any sign permit for the project. 19. The Applicant shall submit a detailed lighting plan with the building permit application for Building A and Building 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 footcandle illumination in pedestrian areas. The detailed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 20. The surface material for all pedestrian walking surfaces shall be either concrete, unit pavers, or similar material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 21. The Applicant shall comply with contamination-related details associated with the project, as identified by Department of Ecology. More specifically, three (3) onsite 48-inch diameter dry wells be decommissioned in accordance with WAC 173-160. Any project construction that could encounter groundwater with elevated pH levels must provide provisions beyond standard worker safety precautions in accordance with WAC 173-340-810, Safety Standards for Hazardous Waste, and WAC 173-340-810, Worker Safety and Health. Such activities include removal, treatment, and disposal of any soil, settling pond sediment, or groundwater during the proposed partial demolition of the settling basins and restoration of the Cedar River shoreline. Compliance with Department of Ecology’s identified contamination-related details shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP CAO VARIANCE - 20 20 22. The Applicant shall demonstrate ADA requirements for the proposed six-foot (6’) stair and walkway widths or apply for a shoreline variance application for the expanded width above four feet (4”). 23. The Applicant shall complete site inspection of the public access prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first building. 24. The Applicant shall submit a draft of the public access legal instrument to be recorded that includes language regarding maintenance responsibilities with the building permit application. The final legal instrument shall be recorded prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the first building. 25. The Applicant shall be required to provide a public access signage package with the civil construction permit application. The public access signage package shall be provided to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit issuance. Decision issued August 19, 2021. Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) 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.