HomeMy WebLinkAboutDOE02_HEX_Decision_Cedar_River_210820_Final1
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
REVISED1 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
1 The Final Decision issued on this matter on August 19, 2021 was revised to delete former Condition No. 22 per mutual
agreement of the parties during the hearing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN & SSDP
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
trail along the river providing continuous views of the river and shoreline with access from
Maple Valley Highway and Cedar River Park Dr.
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-
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
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate
parks and open space.
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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:
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
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. 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. 172 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.
2 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
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(A), circulation
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.
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
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.
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).
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)(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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
22. The Applicant shall complete site inspection of the public access prior to Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy of the first building.
23. 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.
24. 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 25, 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.
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Cedar River Apartments
Project Number:
LUA19-000161, ECF, SA-M, SSDPError! Reference source not
found.
Date of Report
August 10, 2021
Staff Contact
Clark H. Close
Senior Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
David Maul
Rutledge Maul Architects PS
19940 Ballinger Way NE Ste
A-33, Shoreline, WA 98115
Project Location
1915 Maple Valley Hwy,
Renton, WA 98055 (APN
1723059026)
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-39: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 40-55: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 56: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 57: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 58: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/
Exhibit 59: Clarification Email from Clark Close dated August 12, 2021
Exhibit 60: Clarification Email from Ray Liaw dated August 12, 2021