HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Recommendation 5-11-171
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
10 Quendall Terminals
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT,
I 1 Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline and
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
RECOMMENDATION
IZ Substantial Development Permit
13 LUA09-151, ECF, EIS, SA-M, SM
14
I S Summary
16 The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline
17 Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a mixed-use development
located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. The project includes 692 dwelling units, 42,190 sq. ft.
lg of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352 parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open
space. It is recommended that the City Council approve all permit applications and the
19 development agreement.
20
The applicant and staff have undergone a monumental effort in assuring that the proposed
21 development is compatible with surrounding uses and sensitive to the environmental constraints
of its challenging location. Since the applicant first filed his applications on November 18, 2009,
22 the project has been transformed from a proposal involving 800 dwelling units, 245,000 syuare
feet of office space and 30,600 square feet of retail/restaurant to the current proposal of no office
23 space and 108 less dwelling units. In order to enhance shoreline access,open spaces,landscaping,
24 view corridors and transportation improvements, staff have imposed 137 mitigation measures
composed of 46 recommended in the staff report and 91 resulting from the environmental review.
25 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Addendum drew 88 comment letters and the Final Environmental Impact Statement was
26 appealed. By the date of the April 18,2017 hearing,the appeal had been withdrawn and only five
members of the public appeared to testify. Two of the speakers, neighbors, spoke in favor of the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
1
1
project.
2
One of the primary reasons that permit processing has taken almost eight years is because the
3 project site is an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") superfund site. The project site is
the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated from 1917 to 1969. In the4
past, coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater, surface water and lake
5 sediments. The EPA is conducting a remedial investigation and feasibility study to better
understand the type and amount of contamination to develop a cleanup plan. The EPA's process
is a separate process then the City's land use review. Currently the site is vacant. However, the
City worked with the EPA to define the baseline assumptions that would result from the cleanup
action specified in the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used
g to evaluate the Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit. Remediation is
anticipated to include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the
9 upland portions of the site, including placement of a soil cap across the project site and shoreline
restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts associated with cleanup/remediation
10 activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The analysis of the subject land
use permits assume a site after remediation has been accomplished.
11
12 EPA work is continuing and well justifies the need for the proposed development agreement since
the remediation work will continue to significantly add to the time necessary to develop the
13 Project. The primary benefit to the applicant in the development agreement is extending permit
expiration from five years to ten to fifteen years with associated vesting of development standards
14 during the extended eXpiration period. The expiration periods for the three permit applications is
two to five years without the development agreement. In exchange for the extended expiration
15 periods and associated vesting, the developer is offering the addition of 1.3 acres of public park
16 space at the southwest corner of the project site; additional retail/restaurant/office space and street
activation (fountains, artwork, etc.); either a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by
1 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)to allow for public access to Lake Washington; and
a SEPA transportation re-evaluation requirement at 5 year increments. The development
18 agreement amenities will add retail space to the waterward side of the project, enhancing the
function of a shoreline trail proposed for that area.
19
20 The two largest impacts of the proposal (recognizing that EPA is handling remediation)are traffic
and view impairment. The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and
21 545 PM peak hour vehicular trips at full buildout. The project site is located next to I-405 and
NE 44th street interchange, which currently operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to
22 improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were assessed with and without the completion of the
WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the23projectusetheinterchangeinsteadofCitystreets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
24 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However,the actual time frame is not certain so it's necessary
to assess a scenario where ti e WSDOT project won't be completed. Without the WSDOT project,
25 off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and southbound ramp intersections.
As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be widened and these improvements will
26 have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project. To the south of the project, traffic
calming treatments will be placed south of 41st to discourage long distance travel along that
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
2
1
corridor. Increased use of these City streets was a concern raised by a couple people testifying at
2 the hearing on the proposal. The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation
will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even
3 with the current congestion, according to the project engineer, it's still faster to use I-405 than the
4 City streets to the south of the project.
5 View impacts were extensively addressed in both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Addendum. There is little question that the multiple
six story buildings will partially impair the water views of residents of the Kennydale
neighborhood. However, the maximum building proposed building height is 64 feet and the
applicable COR zone authorizes heights of 125 feet. The adjoining Seahawks facility has a
g building that is 115 feet in height. To mitigate the view impacts,the proposal includes a widened
central road(Road B)to serve as a Lake Washington view corridor and also setbacks to adjoining
9 properties to the north and south that significantly exceeds applicable setback reyuirements.
10
Testimony
11
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner's Recommendation. It is solely1 provided for the convenience of the reader,for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
13
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or sign ing any priority or
importance to the comments of any ind vidual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
14 accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
15 Staff Opening Presentation:
6 Vanessa Dolbee, City of Renton Planning Manager, summarized the staff report. In response to
1 examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee stated that as shown in Ex. 23,the City Council expressly authorized
the hearing examiner to hold the public hearing on the binding site plan on their behalf on April 4.
1 g Ms. Dolbee noted that the examiner is only making a recommendation on the development agreement.
Ms. Dolby noted that through the development agreement the applicant is requesting an extended time
19 frame for development in exchange for enhanced benefits. Ms. Dolbee noted that depictions of the
site in the PowerPoint are only artistic renderings of what the project site will generally look like and20thatprecisedetailsofdesignwillbereviewedandapprovedduringsubsequentsiteplanreview. The
21 heights of the proposed buildings are tiered with the tallest buildings oriented towards the center and
north of the project.
22
The development agreement gives the applicant an extended time frame for development (ten to
23 fifteen years instead of five years) in exchange for project enhancements, hence the proposal is now
referred to as the "enhanced alternative." The development agreement allows transportation to be re-24
evaluated every five years. The development agreement vests the development as of February 10,
25 2010 for the term of the agreement. The term of the development agreement starts the earlier of either
when the City approves the permit applications or when the Environmental Protection Agency
26 ("EPA") issues a Record of Decision ("ROD"). There's an option to extend the term from ten to
fifteen years. The enhancements include a 1.3-acre park, public access to the lake that is ideally a
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
3
1
dock or pier dependent upon the EPA ROD, added retail space and street activation such as fountains.
2 The site is a former creosote facility and was subseyuently designated a superfund site. The EPA will
be issuing a ROD for the clean-up of the site. In order to review the project, the City had to ascertain3howtheprojectsitewouldbeconfigured ("baseline assumptions") as a result of the clean-up effort.
In that regard, the City had to work with EPA to ascertain the baseline assumptions. The baseline4
assumptions include remediation of shoreline and upland soils, a soil cap and a 100-foot shoreline
5 buffer. The City's review is based upon the assumption that there is no contaminated soil and that the
clean-up has been completed as required by the EPA.
6
There are a total of 64 conditions imposed upon the project. The conditions defer a lot of review to
site plan review, particularly for design review. Conditions 20 and 21 address perimeter setbacks.
g There is a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water mark, a 40-foot setback from Barbee Mill
and a 38-foot setback from tt e Seahawks training facility to the north. There is a 70-foot view corridor
9 width for Road B and an 80-foot view corridor width for the semi-private plaza spaces. Pursuant to
Condition 27, Lots 1 and 6 are designed to accommodate the re-created critical areas required by the
10 EPA Record of Decision. If the lots don't have sufficient area for the critical areas,they proposal will
have to be amended. Condition 41 requires a fire lane along the lake side of the project and a looped11Waterline. The buildings will have to be shifted south to accommodate this requirement.
12
In response to examiner questions, Ms. Dolbee noted that staff doesn't consider a re-opening of the
13 hearing in response to denial of the development permit to be a second hearing prohibited by the
Regulatory Reform Act, but rather a continuation of the same hearing. Further, staff leaves it to the
14 discretion of the examiner on whether his review of the master plan, shoreline permit and binding site
plan is a recommendation to the City Council as opposed to a final decision appealable to the CityISCouncil.
16
Applicant Presentation:
17
Ann Gygi, Applicant's attorney, identified the permits subject to review and the vested regulations.
18 She noted that no shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is required for the project.
She noted the hearing consolidates the master plan, binding site plan and shoreline permits. The19applicanthastheburdenofproofinestablishingconsistencywithdecisioncriteria. The examiner is
20 also holding a hearing on the development agreement and the City Council will make the final decision
on the development agreement. The project includes public benefit enhancements that far exceed
21 minimum requirements in exchange for extended development review under the development
agreement.
22
Robert Cugini, applicant, testified that he is part of a joint venture that owns the Quendall terminal23
property. His family jointly purchased the property in 1971. It was initially used as a log storage
24 yard. His family did not cause the contamination of the site. The contamination was caused by the
prior creosote operation. His family had redeveloped the Barbee Mill property and had also owned
25 the Seahawks property to the north. The ownership group wholeheartedly supports the development
agreement. The challenge of working with both the EPA for the clean-up and the City for permit
26 review has taken years and a development agreement is needed to ensure that the project and
remediation can be completed prior to permit expiration.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
4
1
2 Larry Toedtli, project engineer, noted that the project has been subject to extensive transportation
mitigation, including both on and off-site roadway improvements, a transportation demand
3 management program designed to reduce trip generation, payment of transportation impact fees, and
compliance with City concurrency regulations. The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE444thstreetinterchange, which currently operates poorly. The Washington State Department of
5 Transportation ("WSDOT") has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts were
assessed with and without the completion of the WSDOT improvement project. The focus of the
analysis is to have persons travelling to the project using the interchange instead of City streets. The
WSDOT project is slated to commence in 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual
time frame is not certain so it's necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be
g
completed. Without the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of
north and southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
9 widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange project.
To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming treatments will be
10 placed south of 415 to discourage long distance travel along that corridor. Mr. Toedtli has concluded
that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent people from using City streets to the south as11opposedtoi-405. Even with the current congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City
IZ
streets. On-site streets will have curb, gutter and sidewalk, and transit and trail access. The
transportation demand management program is typical of large projects. It identifies site features and
13 programs to reduce reliance upon single-occupant vehicles. The demand management plan should
effectively reduce traffic, especially given the concentrated residential development, which makes it
14 easier to facilitate demand management strategies. The City issued a transportation concurrency
certificate in March 2016. The certificate determined that the City's transportation system has15adequatecapacitytoservethedevelopment. Mr. Toedtli has performed transportation engineering
6
for more than 35 years. The volume and quality of transportation mitigation is at the higher end of
mitigation he's seen required of development projects, in part due to the extensive transportation
17 information available to the City, such as the work associated with the I-405 WSDOT interchange
improvements. The mitigation should be very effective in off-setting traffic impacts.
18
Bob Wells, project architect, testified that he has been on the architect team since 2009. For the last19twoyears, he's been the lead architect in finalizing the enhanced alternative. Project design has been
20 geared towards meeting Renton comprehensive plan and design regulation requirements since the
beginning. Key features directed at meeting design standards includes the proposed mix of retail and
21 restaurant use, view corridors, and centralized parking in the ground floors of the buildings. A
pedestrian environment is created via features such as Street B, the main street, which is pedestrian
22 oriented with sidewalks wider than required, street trees, canopies, prime retail on both sides of the
street and at the west end there's a plaza with restaurants. If you were walking down Street B towards23
the water, you would see retail at the ground floor and residential units above with lobby entries with
24 Lake Washington in the foreground. The restaurant and retail uses are functionally integrated into the
project design. The design creates a sense of place due to the scale and location. Not many projects
25 have a promenade and private park. Those types of amenities make it a pedestrian friendly
environment. The project is consistent with the City's design standards.
26
Campbell Mathewson,project manager, submitted the applications subject to the hearing. The master
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
5
1
plan application encompasses the entire project including building design at a high level, circulation,
2 landscaping and recreation areas. Further refinement will be reviewed during future site plan. The
binding site plan includes detailed grades and lot area etc. for building development. The shoreline
3 permit is required for the development within shoreline jurisdiction. The project was put on hold for
4 a year while working on baseline conditions with the EPA and the City. The EPA review is subject
to its own public comment period. The applications were submitted in 2009. The original project was
5 800 dwelling units,245,000 square feet of office space in two six story buildings as you came into the
project and about 30,000 square feet of retail space. As part of the SEPA process the applicant met
6 with the Barbee Mills and Kennydale Neighborhood homeowner associations, separate members of
the public and the Seahawks. Through that process ended with a preferred alternative that was
significantly reduced in scale and scope that went from 800 units to 692 units. The 245,000 square
g feet of office space was completely eliminated, which significantly reduced parking and traffic
impacts. The buildings were moved back and the number of floors were reduced. A year ago, the
9 applicant was ready to move forward with the preferred alternative along with a staff recommendation
of approval. However,the applicant then wanted more time to digest the recommendations in the staff
10 report. This resulted in the request for a development agreement, which in turn lead to the waterfront
retail and the public park along the southwest corner of the site and the potential for a new dock. The
1 buildings were also set back another 20 feet Mr. Mathewson is familiar with the City's zoning
12
regulations and the project is consistent with those standards. The project could have included
buildings 12 stories in height with millions of more square feet, but it has been paired down to be
13 compatible with surrounding development and to address the concerns raised in the SEPA review.
Landscaped setbacks, drive lanes and surface parking are used to provide separation from adjoining
14 uses. The project significantly exceeds required setbacks. The setbacks are at a minimum of 90 feet
from the Seahawks and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
15
16
As to recreational demand and livability, Mr. Mathewson noted about 60% of the site is open space
for the enhanced alternative, compared to 50% for the preferred alternative. There are courtyards
1 between residential blocks,pedestrian orientation in design,added retail use and restaurants and trails.
The applicant will also be paying park impact fees and will also be providing the 1.3-acre public park.
18 The retail uses will flair out along the water side of the development. The public benefits provided by
the proposal include taking a former polluted industrial site and putting it to productive use for the19firsttimeindecades. A third of a mile of shoreline will now be open to the public. The restaurants
20 and park is also added public benefit. The applicant is prepared to abide by conditions recommended
in the 2016 staff report as revised by the April 11, 2017 memo to the hearing examiner. The Barbee
21 Mill project had a ten-year development agreement. Part of the benefit to the public from the
development agreement was the waterside retail that would activate the waterside promenade and the
22 1.3-acre park that would replace surface parking and the potential for a dock. The development
agreement also provides for a review of transportation impacts at year five.
23
24 Pubiic Comments:
25 Gary Pipkin, neighbor, has lived close to the project site for 29 years. He has four areas of concern.
He believes that Lake Washington Boulevard should remain a 25-mph hour scenic drive. It currently
26 has to twelve-foot wide traffic lanes and needs to remain that way to maintain its scenic drive
characteristics. Lake Washington Boulevard West used to be the same thing. Last year it was changed
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
6
1
to a 30-mph speed limit and as a result has completely lost is scenic drive character. People are going
2 between 35 and 40 most of the time even though the lanes are still 12 feet wide. If lanes are widened
as proposed, then control of traffic is completely lost. His second concern is the buildings. He noted
3 that at four stories the water views of property owners in the lower Kennydale area is limited to a little
4 bit of water and then Mercer Island. Anything more than four stories completely eliminates any view
of the water. There is no view left with six stories. The development will appear to be a big box
5 entirely blocking shoreline views unless your property is parallel to the view corridors. The third
issue, access roads, is great as shown in the renderings. The only other access that would work would
be direct access off of 44th into a traffic light controlled entry into the area. The fourth issue, public
access from the shoreline, should include both a boat dock and a seaplane dock.
7
g Julie Varon, neighbor from Barbee Mill, appreciated the large 120 foot buffers. She also appreciated
the enhancement efforts at beautification. She would like more effort to be made to masque the
9 parking areas. As to traffic, she agrees that Lake Washington Boulevard shouldn't be widened. She
also felt that apartments should be located in the project since it's a mixed-use site and she doesn't
10 want it to be an elitist area.
11 Sherrie Cline, neighbor from Barbee Mill, testified that she abuts the project. Her family and
2 grandchildren visit her all the time. She wants the project to get completed so the contamination can
be cleaned up as quickly as possible.
13
Mark Hancock, Kennydale neighbor and a real estate developer, spoke in support of the development
14 agreement and enhanced alternative. He believes it's a great compromise between the needs of the
applicant and that of neighbors. He feels staff has done a great job in representing the interests of15residentsandalsothatthedeveloperhasbeenveryaccommodating.
16
Len Reid, neighbor from Barbee Mill, noted that a park and ride and a public trail will be built near
1 the project site. He was concerned about traffic conflicts caused by these facilities, including bicycle
safety. He was also concerned that contaminated soils could be displaced towards Barbee Mills during
18 pile driving and that the pile driving would also cause noise and vibration impacts.
19 Staff Rebuttal:
20
In staff rebuttal, Ms. Dolbee noted that it was unclear whether the written comment from Mr. Taylor
21 was for the subject project or for the dredging project that was being reviewed separately that day, so
to cover all bases Mr. Taylor's comments were being submitted for both hearings. As to view impacts,
22 a view analysis was conducted for the project and the resulting mitigation recommendations were
implemented in the mitigation document. Pile driving impacts were addressed in the EIS and the23
recommended mitigation measures were incorporated into the mitigation document. As to soil
24 contaminants being moved with pile driving,the EPA will be addressing that issue. As to the aesthetic
impacts of parking, a condition of approval requires landscape screening of those portions of the
25 parking garage that don't contain retail, office or lobby entrance spaces. The design standards also
require further aesthetic buffering during site plan review. ln response to examiner questions, Mr.
26 Dolbee explained that the enhanced alternative will improve upon shoreline views of the parking
structure because it will be moved back and retail space will be placed in front of it.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
7
1
Applicant Rebuttal:
2
Tim Flynn, project lead on site clean-up, testified that EPA will require detailed health and safety
3 plans and these plans will ensure that neighboring properties aren't subject to any contamination as a
result of the clean-up effort or redevelopment of the project site.4
5 In closing statements, Ms. Gygi noted that the EIS process has taken six years and has brought about
a significant reduction in scale and scope of the project and generated a broad range of mitigation
measures. The project includes a thorough 2016 staff report along with a 2017 update for the enhanced
alternative showing compliance with all applicable criteria. The applicant has agreed to all conditions
of approvaL Mr. Toedtli testified that in his 35 years of transportation experience, the project is one
g of the most thoroughly mitigated he has encountered. The environmental review committee has found
the traffic impacts to be adequately mitigated. The project architect testified that the proposal meets
9 and exceeds the design criteria as applicable to the master plan stage of review. The proposal provides
for public access and use of shoreline areas. The development is only required to have 25 foot setbacks
10 and far exceeds that minimum standard with a minimum of 120 feet for the residential side of the
project.
11
12
Exhibits
13
Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the April 11, 2016 Staff Report and Exhibit 19-23 identified at
14 page 2 of the April 11, 2017 Memorandum to Hearing Examiner were entered during the April 18,
15 2017 public hearing. In addition,the following documents were admitted during the April 18, 2017
public hearing as well:
16
Exhibit 24 Email from Examiner to Staff dated April 17, 2017
17 Exhibit 25 Email from Fred Warnock dated April 16, 2017
Exhibit 26 Email from Charles Taylor dated April 15, 2017
g Exhibit 27 City of Renton COR maps and GIS data
19
Exhibit 28 Google Maps
Exhibit 29 City of Renton power point
20 Exhibit 30 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Vested Development Regulations"
Exhibit 31 Notebook dated April 18, 2017 "Supplemental Applicant Exhibits"
21 Exhibit 32 Aerial Photograph with artist rendering of project site
Exhibit 33 Larry Toedtli CV
22 Exhibit 34 Bob Wells Resume
23
Exhibit 35 Lance Mueller Resume
Exhibit 36 Street B rendering
24 Exhibit 37 June 6, 2016 Site Plan P1.0
Exhibit 38 June 1, 2016 Site Plan P0.0
25 Exhibit 39 April 3, 2017 City Council Agenda Bill for Consolidation of Development
Agreement with Land Use Applications
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
8
1
2
3
FINDINGS OF FACT
4
Procedural:
5
6
1. Ap licant. Campbell Mathewson, Century Pacific, L. P., 1201 Third Ave, suite 1680, Seattle,
WA, 98101
7
g
2. Hearin. A hearing was held on the subject applications on April 18, 2017 at 10:00 am in the
City of Renton Council Chambers. The record is left open to consider additional evidence as necessary
9 if the proposed development agreement is denied or modified by the City Council.
10
Substantive:
11
3. Project and Site Descri tpion. The applicant has requested approval of Master Plan Review,
12 Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and a Development Agreement for a
mixed-use development located at 4350 Lake Washington Blvd.
13
14
A. ProposaL The 21.46-acre site would be divided into 7 lots of which 4 would contain mixed-
use buildings.The proposal would include 692 residential units(resulting in a net residential
15 density of 40.95 units/acre), 42,190 sq. ft. of commercial uses [retail and restaurant], 1,352
parking spaces and 12.9 acres of parks/open space. All buildings are designed to be
16 constructed as 3 — 5 stories over one parking/commercial level with a maximum building
height of 64 feet. The applicant has proposedl to dedicate 3.65 acres for public right-of-
1 way, which would provide access to the 7 proposed lots. Access to the site is proposed via
1 g
the development of new internal Roads A— E. The primary site access from public streets
is proposed at two locations, one from N 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane
19 Seahawks Way). The site contains approximately 0.81 acres of wetlands and 1,583 linear
feet of shoreline along Lake Washington. It is anticipated that approximately 53,000 —
20 133,000 cubic yards of fill would be imported to the site. The proposed development
agreement will extend the expiration period of the project from five years to ten to fifteen
21
years. In exchange for this amenity, the applicant will provide 1.3 acres of public park
22 space, additional retail/restaurant/office space and street activation (fountains, artwork,
etc.), and a public dock/pier and/or an alternative approved by the EPA to allow for public
23 access to Lake Washington. The applicant's binding site plan application was deemed
complete by City staff on its submittal date of February 10, 2010.
24
25
26 '
The conditions of approval require all internal streets to be private.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
9
1
B. Site Conditions/Superfund Desi nation. The subject site has received a Superfund
2 designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The property owners
are currently working on a remediation plan with EPA. The applicant is proposing to begin
3 construction after the EPA has issued a Record of Decision(ROD) identifying a remedy for
clean-up. The anticipated date of this decision is unknown at this time.4
5 The project site is the location of a former creosote manufacturing facility that operated
from 1917 to 1969. In the past coal tars and creosote have contaminated soil, groundwater,
6 surface water and lake sediments. Based on this history in 2005 the Department of Ecology
transferred the oversight of the Quendall Terminals environmental clean up to the EPA,
which designated the project site a Superfund site. The EPA is conducting a remedial
g investigation and feasibility study to better understand the type and amount of
contamination and develop a cleanup plan. This work is being conducted under the
9 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act(CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund). The EPA's CERCLA process is separate from the City's land use review.
10 Currently the site is vacant. However,the City worked with the EPA (Exhibit 15)to define
the baseline assumptions that would result from the CERCLA cleanup action specified in
I 1 the final cleanup remedy. These same baseline assumptions are being used to evaluate the
IZ Binding Site Plan, Master Site Plan and Shoreline Permit (see Exhibit 2, DEIS Chapter 2,
for more details on the baseline assumptions). CERCLA remediation is anticipated to
13 include remediation of hazardous substances in lake sediments and in some of the upland
portions of the site(Main Property), including placement of a soil cap across the entire Main
14 Property and shoreline restoration in a 100-foot shoreline buffer. Potential impacts
associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA
15 process and the subject land use permits assume a site after remediation has been
16
accomplished.
i C. Environmental Review/"Enhanced" verses "Preferred" Alternatives. The environmental
impacts of the proposal were thoroughly assessed in a final environmental impact statement
18 FEIS"), Ex. 2, issued on August 31, 2015. The mitigation measures recommended from
the environmental review were compiled into 91 conditions comprising the Mitigation19Document, Ex. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the Mitigation Document is
20 recommended as a condition of approval. Prior to the addition of enhancements proposed
for the development agreement, see FOF No. 3(A), the "Preferred Alternative" assessed in
21 an DEIS Addendum, Ex. 2, served as the applicant's development proposal. The preferred
alternative was the project reviewed in the April 2016 staff report. With the addition of the
22 development agreement enhancements, the proposal is now referenced by staff and the
applicant as the "Enhanced Alternative." City staff determined in the Quendall Terminals23EnvironmentalConsistencyAnalysis, Ex. 21, that the Enhanced Alternative is within the
24 range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010 through
2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation measures
25 are required beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation Document.
Consequently,the staff report's review of project impacts for the preferred alternative in the
26 April 2016 staff report is applicable to the impacts of the currently proposed "Enhanced
Alternative". This recommendation identifies the "Enhanced Alternative" synonymously
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
10
1
with the "proposal".
2
4. Surroundin Uses. The project site fronts Lake Washington to the west. Adjoining to the north
3 is the Seahawks training facility and adjoining to the south is the Barbee Mill Development. To the
east is the King County East Side Rail Corridor, Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way) right of way, I-405 and4undevelopedCORzonedproperty.
5
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. Environmental impacts have been analyzed and mitigated in detail in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement,Environmental Consistency Analysis and a Mitigation Document, Ex. 2. The most
significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
g A. Critical Areas. As conditioned, the proposal is designed to comply with the City's critical area
9 regulations. Consequently, it is determined that the proposal will not create significant adverse
impacts to critical areas.
10
The project site is mapped with sensitive slopes, seismic hazards,and wetlands on the City Critical11AreasMapandislocatedwithintheshorelinejurisdictionofLakeWashington.Due to the baseline
12 assumptions described above under FOF 3(B) it is anticipated the only remaining critical areas
would be seismic hazards following cleanup. Wetland and shoreline restoration would be located
13 in the 100-foot shoreline setback. The outcome of the EPA's ROD would specifically identify the
extent and design of the retained/reestablished and/or expanded wetlands and critical areas on the
14 project site. Mitigation Measure B4, Ex. 2, prohibits the proposal from adversely affecting the
recreated wetlands and/or their buffers. Once the ROD has been issued and recreated wetlands
15 and other critical areas are known, the proposed impacts to these areas will be specifically
16 reviewed at the time of site plan review for compliance with critical areas regulations. The DEIS
assumes wetland buffer averaging would be used to ensure no impacts of wetland buffers on
1 adjacent properties as a result of habitat restoration. The site-specific site plan review should
include an analysis of the wetland buffer averaging criteria and the project compliance with the
18 criteria if buffer averaging is used. If the ROD results in the project's inability to comply with the
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e. the
19 buffers of the recreated wetlands cannot be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6),Recommended
20 Condition of Approval ("COA") No. 27 requires Lots 1 and 6 shall be increased to ensure
compliance with the critical areas regulations and ensure that all wetlands and associated buffers
21 are contained in what will become Native Growth Protection Area tracts. If the change to the
overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site development plan per
22 RMC 4-9-200(J)a new application would be required.
23 As noted in Mitigation Document Condition C 10, Ex. 2, if the EPA issues a ROD that is different
24 than what is assumed in the Quendall Terminals EIS, City reviewing officials shall determine
whether the applicant shall be required to prepare additional SEPA review to address any
25 difference between the ROD and the assumptions in the EIS. Such differences could include
impacts to reestablished critical areas beyond buffer averaging.To ensure a true baseline condition
26 is known at the time of site plan review or construction permit application and prior to recor-ding
of the binding site plan, Recommended Condition of Approval No. 44(iv) requires that a site plan
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
11
1
application, construction permit application or the recording of the Binding Site shall not be
2 submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to issuance of the ROD.
3 It is also determined that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline environmental resources.
Pages 3.6-14—3.6-15 of the DEIS concludes that the proposal will not adversely affect shoreline4
resources. Subsequent to remediation activities conducted under the oversight of the EPA, the
5 DEIS concludes that redevelopment is not anticipated to adversely affect habitat in Lake
Washington (i.e. for salmonid fish species). During construction, a temporary erosion and
6 sedimentation control plan (TESCP), including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
and sedimentation control, would be implemented, per City stormwater regulations. Following
construction, a permanent stormwater control system would be installed in accordance with City
g
stormwater regulations. Stormwater runoff would be collected and conveyed via a piped
stormwater system to new outfalls at Lake Washington. Runoff from pollution-generating
9 surfaces would be treated prior to discharge to the lake. The stormwater outfall pipes would be
situated to avoid crossing the restored/created wetland areas. These outfalls could be constructed
10 during site remediation to reduce impacts to shoreline vegetation.
11 B. Views. As conditioned, the project will not create any significant adverse view impacts. The
12 subject site is located along the shores of Lake Washington. The current site is vacant and allows
for expansive views from the neighboring properties as well as the public right-of-way, Lake
13 Washington Blvd., Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way), and N 44th St. The addition of multi-story
structures and development on the site will impact views from the surrounding area. These
14 impacts were evaluated in the DEIS and the EIS Addendum, Exhibit 2, specifically section 3.7 of
the DEIS and section 3.2 of the EIS Addendum. As a result of this analysis the Preferred
15 Alternative was developed with a wider Road B to provide a grand view corridor down the center
16
of the site. In addition, larger setbacks were established from the south and north edges of the
property. Finally, the residential towers are separated with plaza space on top of the parking
1 garage to allow for additional view corridor through the development from the public rights-of-
way and the development located on the hill behind the subject site. Mitigation Measures Fl —
18 F 15 were established to minimize impacts to both aesthetics and views. To ensure the east west
view corridors are maintained, COA 21 requires that Road B shall maintain a minimum width of
9 74 feet and that the plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall maintain a minimum width of
20
80 feet.
21 At the hearing, Mr. Pipkin asserted that buildings more than four stories in height would
completely block views of residents of the lower Kennydale neighborhood from the water between
22 the project site and Mercer Island. Mr. Pipkin's comments on this issue were uncontested and
appear to be consistent with the view impact analysis in the DEIS and EIS addendum. However,
23 in the absence of more specific view impact standards, the design features directed at mitigating
24 view impacts must be considered sufficient to reduce view impacts to nonsignificant levels. The
maximum building height in the COR zone is 125 feet and the Seahawks facility to the north takes
25 almost full advantage of this height limit with a building that is 115 feet in height. The applicant
has limited building height to a maximum of 64 feet, has widened Road B to provide for a view
26 corridor and has also included view opportunities along the setbacks,which are significantly wider
than required for the project. According to the testimony of the project manager, the setbacks are
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
12
1
proposed as a minimum of 90 feet from the Seahawks facility and 120 feet from Barbee Mills.
2 SEPA mitigation measures only require a setback of 40 feet from Barbee Mill and 38 feet from
the Seahawks facility. Given these circumstances, it is concluded that the applicant has taken all
3 reasonable measures that could be legally required to mitigate view impacts given the development
potential of the project site and the view corridors and self-imposed height limitations proposed4bytheapplicant.
5
C. Noise, Privacy and Dust. The City's noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative
standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It
is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the
g
project. As part of future site plan review, the applicant will be required to submitted a
Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise,
9 control of dust, traffic controls, etc. as dictated by the submission requirements of Chapter 4-8
RMC. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City's noise ordinance
10 regarding construction hours. With these measures in place,noise and dust impacts are adequately
mitigated.
11
12 The proposed building layout provides semi-private court yards between each residential tower
which would allow access to light and air in each unit, in addition adequate separation for privacy.
13 The 80-foot wide plaza corridors allow for a large number of residential units to have an
opportunity for views of Lake Washington. For those units located over Road B and the
l4 retaiUrestaurant area some additional noise could be anticipated due to the active street. Specifics
of noise reduction and privacy would be reviewed at lot specific site plan review, such as window
15 coverings and an evaluation specific uses proposed in the court yard spaces.
16
D. Draina e. Adeyuate provision is made for ensuring that the proposal doesn't create any significant
1 adverse drainage impacts. The City's stormwater regulations assure that stormwater impacts are
fully mitigated. The staff report notes that the 2009 stormwater manual is applicable to the project.
18 As noted in Conclusion of Law("COL")No. 2 of this recommendation, more current stormwater
regulations may apply if construction is not commenced by 2022. In either event, stormwater
19 regulations will comprehensively address stormwater impacts.
20
Stormwater was evaluated in the DEIS and EIS Addendum in the following elements: Earth,
21 Critical Areas, Environmental Heath, and Land and Shoreline Use (Exhibit 2). As a result of this
analysis mitigation measures A1, A10, A11, B2, and B7 were established and will become a
22 condition of this permit. Because the internal streets of the development are required to be private,
the storm water system for the development will be required to be private. A stormwater covenant
23 for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facility and assigning maintenance
24 responsibility of the BMPs to the property owners will required to be recorded with the binding
site plan. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to stormwater shall be maintained
25 a condition of approval reyuires that that the applicant provided a covenant or HOA documents
for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for
26 the maintenance of all common facilities and open space constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
13
1
2 A drainage plan and drainage report (based on the City stormwater regulations) is required to be
submitted with the utility construction permit for approval of stormwater facility design. The site
3 is located in the Flow Control Duration Standard forested site conditions. The applicant is
proposing to use the direct discharge exemption for the project. Water quality treatment is4
proposed for the project and will have to be consistent with City stormwater standards. Storm
5 water flow control BMPs are to be provided. All recommendations of the geotechnical report shall
be followed in the design and construction of the project.
6
The project was reviewed by the City's Surface Water Utility Supervisor, who provided project
specific comments in Exhibit 16, in his memo dated September 14, 2009. As noted in Exhibit 16,
g the drainage plan and report required to be submitted with the construction permit should include
an offsite analysis report. The report should assesses potential offsite drainage and water quality
9 impacts associated with development of the project site and should identify appropriate mitigation
for any of the identified off site impacts, a printout of all land use input values for pre- and post-
10 developed impervious and pervious areas, a basin summary table for the existing conditions and
developed condition land use, and include a wetland analysis for hydrology.I1
12
E. Aesthetics. The proposal is heavily regulated to eliminate all significant adverse aesthetic impacts
via the City's design,view protection and landscaping standards. The replacement of a superfund
13 toxic waste site with a quality mixed use development with significant public shoreline access is
by itself a tremendous improvement over current aesthetic conditions. The view corridor and
14 enhanced setbacks identified in FOF No. 3(B) on view impacts enhances aesthetics by providing
view corridors to the shoreline. Since the project site is located in Design District "C", building5andsitedesignissubjecttogeneraldesignreviewatthemasterplanstageanddetaileddesign
6
review during site plan review. As determined in this recommendation, the proposal complies
with the District"C" design standards for master plan review.
17
The proposal is also subject to detailed landscaping standards that arise from City landscaping
18 standards as well as mitigation measures imposed from the SEPA review. As required in the
Mitigation Document, Mitigation Measure E1, E2 and F5, the project shall be designed and
19 constructed to provide a partial visual screen between proposed buildings and adjacent uses. The
20 applicant provided a conceptual landscape plan with the Preferred Alternative re-submittal dated
12-16-2015, Exhibit 11. Based on the provided conceptual landscape plan, a 20-foot wide
21 landscape buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 10-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east
of Road C along the south property line (Barbee Mill Development). A 10-foot wide landscape
22 buffer is proposed west of Road C and a 5-foot wide landscape buffer is proposed east of Road C
along the north property line (Seahawk's Training Camp). The proposed preferred alternative
23
would be compliant with Mitigation Measures El, E2, and F5. A condition of approval requires
24 that the minimum landscape buffers are maintained along the north and south property line as
shown in Exhibit 11.
25
Street frontage landscaping is proposed behind the sidewalk in some portions of Street A and
26 Street B. Street trees are proposed to be placed in tree grades along all Roads A, B, and C. All
street trees are required to be planted at a minimum 2-inch caliper and the tree grates are required
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
14
1
to be 4' x 8'. The provided conceptual landscape plan does not comply with the minimum caliper
2 inches and/or tree grate sizes and as such a recommended condition of approval requires that a
final detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval for the common areas
3 prior to application for any lot specific site plan review and shall be installed prior to recording of
the binding site plan, unless otherwise approved through a phasing plan.4
5 Landscaping proposed on each individual lot shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan
review. This includes but is not limited to screening landscaping for parking garages, surface
parking lot landscape standards, court yard landscape details, and shoreline landscaping, as noted
in Mitigation Measures F4, G12 and G13.
7
g
F. Tree Protection. The proposal doesn't create any significant impacts from clearing of vegetation
since it complies with the City's tree protection standards. Staff have determined that the City's
9 tree protection standards don't require any tree retention since no trees will be located at the project
site subseyuent to remediation.
10
G. CompatibilityBuildin Massing. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding1 uses. The property is surrounded on two sides by COR zoned property, Lake Washington to the
12
west and R-10 property for the Barbee Mills property to the south. Beyond the view and traffic
issues addressed elsewhere,the only compatibility issue is the mixed uses of the project adjoining
13 the residential uses of Barbee Mill. Compatibility is achieved by a downscaling of the buildings
along the southern end of the project site to four and five stories and the enhanced setbacks set at
14 a minimum of 120 feet as well as a 1.3-acre public park placed on the southwestern corner of the
project site.
15
16 As evaluated in the EIS, both building massing and building height were analyzed for impacts on
adjacent properties. As a result, Mitigation Document conditions E3, E4, Fl, F8, F9, F11, and
17 F15 were established. These mitigation measures address setbacks from adjacent properties and
Lake Washington, building height, and building modulation. With imposition of these measures,
18 the proposal will not result in an overconcentration of development on any portion of the site.
19 H. Li htin . As conditioned, lighting impacts are minimized to nonsignificant levels. Lighting
20 proposed on each individual building shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review
for compliance with the design standards below for lighting and Mitigation Document condition
21 F13. At that time, the lighting design should consider mitigation measures B 11 and F7 to ensure
that lighting impacts on wetlands, shorelines and riparian habitat is reduced by the use of
22 downlighting and shielding among other techniques.
23 Common site lighting shall be incorporated into the design of the pedestrian walkways and
24 roadways, gateway features, public art, special landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and other
common areas, as required by Mitigation Document conditions F 13 and H9 and the design
25 standards. A common site lighting plan was not included in the re-submittal of the Preferred
Alternative therefore staff could not verify compliance with mitigation measures F13 and H9 or
26 compliance with the design standards. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
15
1
that a site lighting plan be provided identifying compliance with mitigation measure F13 and H9
2 and the design standards for the common areas.
3 I. Loading and Stora e Areas. The proposal will not be encumbered with unsightly loading and
storage areas. Detailed screening standards would be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan4
review. Based on the provided Master Plan there are no large loading areas that would include
5 loading docks. It is anticipated that the site would demand a level of delivery for the retail and
restaurant uses, which could be accommodated in the parking garages or the private roadways at
off peak hours.
7
g
6. Adeyuacv of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
9
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
10 provided by the City of Renton. There is an existing 12-inch diameter water main on the
King County parcel fronting the site and a 10-inch water main extending into the project site.11 There is a 12-inch sewer main extending near the east property line of the project site. The
12 development is subject to the applicable water system development charges (SDC) fee and
water meter installation fees based on the number and size of the meters for domestic,
13 landscape and fire sprinkler uses. The SDC fee is paid prior to issuance of construction
permits.
14
B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department15andpoliceprotectionbytheCityofRentonPoliceDepartment. Police and Fire staff
16 indicated that sufficient resources eacist to furnish services to the proposed development; if
the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees.
17
Pursuant to condition H8 of the Mitigation Document, a fire access road shall be provided
18 to the west of the westernmost buildings onsite. The road shall be a minimum of 20 feet
wide, and shall be constructed with crushed rock or grass-crete to support the weight of fire19apparatus, and shall be available for emergency vehicle access. If located in the minimum
20 100-foot shoreline setback area, and approved by the EPA ROD,the road shall also serve as
a pedestrian traiL If EPA's ROD prohibits the fire access road within the minimum 100-foot
21 shoreline setback area, the road shall be relocated to the west side of the westernmost
buildings onsite, and could be combined with the trail.
22
Mitigation Measure H8 allows for the fire access road to be located within the 100-foot23
shoreline setback area and serve as a combined public trail. However,the looped water line
24 required for the buildings to meet fire flow requirements is only permitted in a paved surface.
Considering the water service requires paved access, a condition of approval requires that
25 the water maintenance road and the fire access be combined. This would allow the trail
which is to be located in the riparian area to be constructed of soft surface materials.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
16
1
C. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adeyuate parks and open space. As
2 previously noted, the proposal includes 12.9 acres of parks and open space.
3 Impacts to parks and recreation were evaluated in the EIS, EIS Addendum and
4
Environmental Consistency Analysis in Exhibit 2 and 21. An assessment of park
demand was based upon the application of the City's adopted parks level of service
5 standard to the number of dwelling units proposed for the project. Based upon this
application, the mitigation document identified a number of parks and recreation
mitigation measures (Gl —G13) to improve public open spaces and recreation areas.
The amount of on-site parks and open space proposed and required of the applicant
would not by itself be sufficient to meet applicable park level of service standards.
g However, the applicant will also be required to pay park impact fees to pay for off-site
park and open space facilities. It is determined that the significant on-site park and open
9 space amenities coupled with the payment of park impact fees should be sufficient to
mitigate the park and open space demand created by the project.
10
11 As to park and open space mitigation measures, Mitigation Document condition G2
12 requires that approximately 10.6 acres of"Natural Public Open Space Areas"and"Other
Related Areas" be provided on the site. The "Natural Public Open Space Area" shall
13 include a 0.5-acre trail and 3.2 acres of natural area along the traiL The "Other Related
Areas" on site shall include street level landscaping, landscape courtyards, sidewalks,
14 paved plazas and Lot 7. The applicant's site plan, Exhibit 7, identifies 3.22 acres of
Natural Areas along the shoreline and 0.45 acres of trail, and 6.47 acres in "Other
I S Related Areas". Based on the site plan the proposal does not identify compliance with
16 Mitigation Measure G2. Mitigation Measure G7, requires the hours of public use of the
trail to be determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently
1 public trail hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is
for public use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved
18 by the Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources
Director prior to installation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with
19 the binding site plan. Mitigation Document condition G10 requires that the trail be
20 enhanced with site amenities such as tables, litter receptacles, benches, interpretive
signage etc. and approved by the Community Services Administrator. Details of the
21 trail's design and site amenities was not included in the application materials.
Mitigation Document condition G11 requires that the trail connect to the Barbee Mill
22 residential development to the south. The Ex. 7 site plan shows the trail ending in the
surface parking lot located in the southwest corner of Lot 5. This design is not in
23
compliance with condition G11. Based on the above analysis the provided materials
24 were not compliant with conditions G2, G'7, G 10, and G 11. As such a recommended
condition of approval requires that the applicant provide an updated site plan and any
25 other necessary materials to identify compliance with conditions G2, G7, G10, and Gl 1
for review and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager and the Community
26 Services Administrator prior to lot specific site plan review or binding site plan
recording.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
17
1
2 The Development Agreement adds a 1.3- acre Public Park to the proposal. The hours
of public use of the park should be consistent with the public trail and should be
3 determined by the City's Community Services Administrator. Currently public park
hours are dawn to dusk, signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public4
use and the hours of public use. The signage shall be reviewed and approved by the
5 Current Planning Project Manager and Parks Planning and Natural Resources Director
prior to insulation. An easement for public access shall be recorded on with the binding
6 site plan. Similar to the trail, the park shall be installed prior to Temporary Occupancy
of the first building on the site.
7
g The"street activation" identified in the development agreement is anticipated to provide
distinctive focal points throughout the development. However, the specifics have not
9 been identified at this time. As such a recommended condition of approval requires that
Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed to be located in the
10 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
11
12
D. Pedestrian Circulation. As conditioned, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe
13 pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,open space,and parking areas with the
sidewalk system and abutting properties. The Ex. 7 site plan includes a number of pedestrian
14 connections via sidewalks along street frontages and a pedestrian trail along the shoreline.
However, based on the Ex. 7 site plan some key connections are missing. For example, the15sidewalkalongthewestedgeofRoadCdoesnotcontinuealongtheprivateStreetEeither
16 north or south. To the west is the trail connection and to the east is the access point to Ripley
Lane (Seahawks Way). Again, there is the same missing connection along the south edge
1 along Street E, at the terminus of Road C. Additionally, the residential courtyards show
stairways along the lake side of the development but no stairways are provided for the
18 buildings east of the lake. In order to ensure the overall site maintains a pedestrian
circulation system of pathways that is clearly delineated and connects buildings, open space,19
parking areas, and existing public roads, and provides for public safety a recommended
20 condition of approval requires that an updated site plan is provided identifying a complete
connected pedestrian pathway system for review and approval by the Current Planning
21 Project Manager and shall demonstrate compliance with mitigation measure H3. The
approved pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon recording.
22
Mitigation Document conditions H3 and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian
23 circulation shall be provided to encourage future transit usage to and from the site when
24 planned public transit becomes available. The pedestrian connectivity plan required as a
recommended condition of approval should include pedestrian connections to the public
25 right of way, Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) to meet this
condition.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
18
1
E. Street Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate street
2 infrastructure. Traffic impacts were thoroughly reviewed in the DEIS and DEIS addendum.
For the enhanced alternative constituting the proposal,additional transportation analysis was
3 included in the EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, to evaluate changes in trips from the
Preferred Alternative. The Consistency Analysis concluded that transportation impacts of4theEnhancedAlternativewouldbewithintherangeofimpactsidentifiedintheDEIS, EIS
5 Addendum and FEIS for the EIS alternatives. With implementation of the project mitigation
measures, with or without the I-405 improvements, staff determined that significant
transportation impacts are not anticipated.
The project site is located next to the I-405 and NE 44th street interchange, which currently
g
operates poorly. WSDOT has a funded project to improve and widen it. Traffic impacts
were assessed in the environmental review with and without the completion of the WSDOT
9 improvement project. The focus of the analysis is to have persons travelling to the project
using the interchange instead of City streets. The WSDOT project is slated to commence in
10 2019 and to be completed in 2024. However, the actual time frame is not certain so it's
necessary to continue a scenario where the WSDOT project won't be completed. Without
I the WSDOT project, off-site improvements will necessitate channelization of north and
12
southbound ramp intersections. As to the frontage, Lake Washington Boulevard will be
widened and these improvements will have to be coordinated with the WSDOT interchange
13 project. To the south of the project, in order to minimize southern traffic, traffic calming
treatments will be placed south of 41 st to discourage long distance travel along that corridor.
14 The applicant's traffic engineer testified that the off-site mitigation will effectively prevent
people from using City streets to the south as opposed to I-405. Even with the current
15 congestion, it's still faster to use I-405 than the southern City streets.
16
The proposal is estimated to generate 5,829 daily, 435 AM peak hour and 545 PM peak hour
1 vehicular trips at full buildout. These would represent approximately 173 more daily trips,
no net change in AM peak our trips and 15 more PM peak hour trips than the Preferred
18 Alternative. As to the preferred alternative,page 1-14 ofthe DEIS addendum concluded that
tJhe existing transportation network with and without I-405 Improvements would
19 adequately accommodate the Preferred Alternative at full build-out in 2015, with the
20
additional required/proposed transportation improvements." As previously noted, the
Environmental Consistency Analysis, Ex. 21, conducted for the Enhanced Alternative
21 constituting the proposal under review determined that that the Enhanced Alternative is
within the range of development and probable environmental impacts analyzed in the 2010
22 through 2015 SEPA review of the Quendall terminals project, and no additional mitigation
measures are reyuired beyond those identified in the 2015 FEIS and 2015 Mitigation
23 Document.
24
The effectiveness of the Mitigation Document transportation conditions was evaluated in the
25 DEIS addendum against DEIS Alternative 1 traffic counts, which involved 865 AM peak
hour trips, 950 PM peak hour trips and 9,000 daily trips. Alternative 1 clearly generated far
26 more traffic than the Enhanced Alternative constituting the proposal. The limited
information that was summarized regarding the effectiveness of mitigation in the DEIS
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
19
1
Addendum establishes that even at the much higher trip generation rates of Alternative 1,the
2 traffic mitigation of the Mitigation Document either improves upon or maintains intersection
level of service. Table 3.4-6 of the DEIS Addendum evaluates LOS impacts of mitigation
3 on three of the most poorly functioning affected intersections in 2015 and Table 3.4-2 shows
intersection LOS with and without the proposal in 2015, both in circumstances where4WSDOThasnotcompletedI-405 improvements. A comparison of Tables 3.4-2 and 3.4-6
5 shows that the mitigation will prevent the project from lowering the LOS of the three
intersections and would improve LOS over LOS that would occur without the project. Table
6 3.4-2 also shows the LOS impact of the project, unmitigated, on six other intersections.
Without mitigation in the other five intersections, the proposal will not lower LOS in any
intersection except for the Lk Wa Blvd/N 36th Street intersection. It is unknown from any
g
of the tables how the mitigation will affect the LOS of this intersection.
9 The only significant change from the transportation analysis of the Preferred Alternative
analyzed in the April 2016 staff report to the current proposal is the elimination of a center
10 turn lane from Street "A'. The removal of this turn lane was evaluated by Transpo Group,
in a memorandum dated January 12,2017,Appendix A of the Consistency Analysis, Exhibit
11 2 L The analysis concluded that the center turn lane is not needed under the current proposal
12
because single-lane approaches at each of the Street `A' intersections would provide
acceptable traffic operations.
13
Conditions H1-H15 ofthe Mitigation Document comprise the mitigation measures necessary
14 to prevent congestion and other adverse traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure H3 requires
frontage improvements along the west side of Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane15SeahawksWay) in front of the site. Other mitigation includes, but is not limited to, travel
16 lane additions, signalization, and additional turn lanes on adjacent and nearby existing
roadways or areas to be dedicated. Per conditions G3 and H3 of the Mitigation Document,
provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall encourage future transit usage to and from the
site, which shall include the requirement for a cross walk and frontage improvements along
18 two private access roads that will cross the old rail line, currently owned by King Co. The
private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements including19landscapedplanterandsidewalktobeprovidedonthenorthsidematchingtheexisting
20 landscaped planter and sidewalk on the south side. The new private access to be located at
the Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way) access shall include an 8-foot wide landscape planter and
21 6-foot wide sidewalk on south side of the access.
22 The construction of off street improvements will require coordination with adjacent property
owners. This is because some of the required improvements will impact property outside of23
existing right-of-way and require dedication of property not currently owned by the
24 applicant. Currently it is anticipated this coordination would be between King County, who
owns the old rail-road right-of-way, the property owner of 4350 Lake Washington Blvd. N,
25 and WSDOT. Due to this need for coordination, a recommended condition of approval
requires that before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should
26 be completed for the required off-site improvements between the developer and all other
affected properties.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
20
1
2 The numerous traffic mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Document could cause
some confusion as it relates to the directions of the off-site improvements, such as
3 southbound, westbound, and eastbound, because the intersections are not oriented directly
north, east, south, and west. To assist in the understanding of these mitigation measures4
Figure 2-1 was prepared for the FEIS, Exhibit 2. However, upon further review of the
5 mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Document, the City's Transportation
Department, has indicated that all required improvements are not reflected in Figure 2-1. In
addition, the mitigation measures listed in the final Mitigation Document contains some
inconsistencies as it relates to directions (northbound and eastbound) and requirements
evaluated in the analysis of the DEIS, EIS Addendum, and FEIS. To resolve the
g inconsistencies and ambiguities, a new graphic has been created as Exhibit 18, which fully
depicts additional motor vehicular travel lanes required as a part of the FEIS and the
9 Mitigation Document. A recommended condition of approval requires that all new lanes as
shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed.
10
In addition to the mitigation measures, internal review has been completed evaluating the11internalroadcrosssections. Plan Review staff has worked with the City's Transportation
12 Division to evaluate the adequacy of the internal street cross sections, for pedestrian
walkways, travel lanes, on street parking, and landscaping standards. This evaluation
13 coupled with the Design District Standards and Development Standards of the zone has
resulted in recommended changes to the proposed cross sections. These roads will become
14 private roads for the purpose of the project and as such strict adherence to the City's standard
street cross sections is not required. However,the design of the streets shall meet minimum
15 standards to accommodate the demand created by the development. Public access will be
16 required for access to the proposed retail and restaurant uses and to meet the standards of
public access under the shoreline master program. As such, a recommended condition of
1 approval requires that a public access easement shall be recorded over the private roadways
and recorded at the same time of Binding Site Plan Recording. See Exhibit 16 for details on
18 street cross section changes required to meet the anticipated needs of the development for
pedestrians, vehicles, public access, Design District Standards, and landscaping. The street19crosssectiondesignwillvarydependingupontheproposedgroundfloordesignofeach
20 building. In general, 10 feet of landscaping is required behind a 6-foot sidewalk in those
areas where a parking structure is located adjacent to the street,or a 12— 15-foot sidewalk is
21 required for those areas where the building contains retail and/or restaurant uses at the ground
floor. On street parking stall widths are reduced per RMC from 10 feet in places to 8 or 6
22 feet in width,travel lanes are reduced from 12 feet to 10 feet in places, a 0.5 foot is added to
account for the curb width,and the required site landscape setbacks are reflected in the cross-
23
section amendments. A recommended condition of approval requires that the applicant
24 amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of construction permit
review; in addition, an updated site plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the
25 amended cross sections.
26 A couple members of the public at the April 18,2017 public hearing expressed concern over
increased traffic on Lake Washington Boulevard. Those concerns are addressed by
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
21
1
Condition HS of the Mitigation Document, which requires the installation of traffic calming
2 treatments on Lake Washington Boulevard south of N 41 st Street to encourage primary trips
generated by the project to utilize the I-405 corridor.The applicant's traffic engineer testified
3 that in his professional opinion these calming features should prevent the use of the southern
street system for the project and also that even without the calming measures, most drivers4
would elect to use I-405 since it provides for a more direct connection to the project site.
5 Given these factors, it is concluded that Condition HS adequately addresses concerns over
increases in traffic south of the project site. Related to this issue, one or two people also
expressed concern over the proposed widening of Lake Washington Boulevard along the
project street frontage, on the basis that this widening could eliminate the"scenic"character
of the road and turn it into more of a higher speed thoroughfare. Although there may be
g some legitimacy to this concern,the issue is not significant enough to override the safety and
functionality considerations integrated into the City's street standards that require the
9 additional street width.
10 F. Vehicular Access. The project site is served by adequate vehicular access. The overall
development has two primary access locations, one from Lake Washington Blvd. N at N
l 42nd Place and a second from Ripley Lane (Seahawks Way). Both access locations cross
12 the King County owned rail road right of way. There is an existing crossing of the rail road
right of way at N 42nd Place but no existing crossing from Ripley Lane. To ensure there are
13 two primary access points to the development, the applicant would be required to receive
approval from King County to construct a second crossing across the rail-road right-of-way.
14 This crossing shall include a pedestrian connection to Ripley Lane via a sidewalk. A
recommended condition of approval requires that documentation be provided to the City15identifyingrightstoconstructacrossingforvehiclesandpedestrianspriortositeplanreview
16 application and construction permit application submittal.
1 Shared access for the lots created by the proposed binding site plan has been proposed
through an internal street system, identified as Roads A—E. The applicant has indicated that
18 Roads A — C would be dedicated public right-of-way and Roads D and E would be private
streets. However, due to the properties designation as a Superfund Site by the EPA the City19isnotwillingtoaccepttheproposedpublicrights-of-way dedications and Roads A—C shall
20 become private on the recorded binding site plan. Because Roads A — C will be private
streets it is necessary to maintain public access to the development, therefore an easement
21 for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C, and B. The
public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and Property
22 Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.
23 G. Schools. Staff has determined that the Renton School District can accommodate any
24 additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Hazelwood
Elementary School, McKnight Middle School (beginning in 2017, Risdon Middle School)
25 and Hazen High School. Any new students from the proposed development would be bussed
to their schools. Because of the large scope and scale of the subject project is it anticipated
26 that a new bus stop may be added that would pick up students within the Quendall Terminals
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
22
1
Development. Specifics to safe walking routs to schools should be evaluated upon lot
2 specific site plan review.
3 A School Impact Fee, based on new multi-family units, will be required in order to mitigate
the proposal's potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City4
as specified by the Renton Municipal Code.
5
H. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and bicycle facilities.
Transit was evaluated as a part of the DEIS and EIS Addendum. Currently no public transit
service is provided to the Quendall Terminals site. The closest transit service to the site is
provided via a dial-a-ride service area fixed route service in the vicinity of the NE 30th St.
g interchange and I-405. Future potential public transportation in the vicinity could include
Bus Rapid Transit on I-405 planned by Sound Transit and WSDOT with a flyer stop at the
9 I-405/NE 44th Street interchange. As previously noted,Mitigation Document conditions H3
and H9 require that provisions for safe pedestrian circulation shall be provided to encourage
10 future transit usage to and from the site when planned public transit becomes available.
11 Currently there are no non-motorized transportation facilities on the Quendall Terminals site,
I Z however there are striped bike lanes on Lake Washington Blvd. In addition,the existing rail
road right-of-way to the east of the site was recently purchased by King County and is
13 identified in the City of Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan as a future "rails to trails"
planned multi-purpose trail corridor. In February 2016, a DEIS was issued evaluating
14 alternatives for the East Side Rail Corridor which continues to include a multi-purpose trail
at this location. Considering the site does not currently have public transit options, the15primaryformandmostreadilyavailableformofalternativenon-motorized transportation is
16
bicycles. Staff anticipates that residents of the development and visitors to the retail and
restaurants proposed at the site would ride bikes. Furthermore, as identified in the Mitigation
1 Document (page 26) to mitigate system-wide transportation impacts on planned vicinity
transportation facilities and reduce or control the general vehicular impacts of the project the
18 applicant shall prepare a TDM plan to the satisfaction of the City of Renton that could include
on-site bicycle facilities, bike lockers, and public shower facilities. Based on the above
19
analysis, a recommended condition of approval requires that bicycle parking be provided in
20 the form of bike racks for the retail, restaurant, and public trail users in addition to secure
weather-protected bike facilities shall be provided for the residential units. Bike parking
21 should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the required parking stalls for the retail and
restaurant uses and at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per residential unit. Bike parking for the residents
22 shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. In addition, the City's Transportation
Division anticipates that individuals utilizing bicycles as a primary form of transportation23
would not use the multi-purpose trail envisioned along the East Side Rail Corridor,therefore
24 a condition of approval requires that a bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north
and south side of Ripley Lane(Seahawks Way)with or without the construction of the multi-
25 purpose trail.
26 L Shoreline Access. The proposal provides for adequate shoreline access. As previously
noted, the proposal includes a trail along the shoreline to provide public visual access to the
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
23
1
shoreline. This trail could double as a fire lane, which means it may likely be 20 feet in
2 width. Based on the assumed outcome of the EPA ROD, it is anticipated that access to the
lake shore would not be permitted. However, Mitigation Document condition B10 requires
3 that the proposed shoreline trail includes interpretive viewpoints. Other amenities to be
incorporated into the trail including viewpoints and large public plaza spaces along the lake4
side of Road B. A recommended condition of approval requires a public trail along the lake
5 side of the new buildings proposed on Lots 2 and 5. Based on the provided drawings details
of this trail are not included and the design does not comply with the mitigation measures
identified in the mitigation document. As such, a recommended condition of approval
requires that a detailed trail design be submitted for review and approval by the Current
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to site specific site
g plan review and construction permit application. In addition,should the EPA ROD eliminate
the significant public access from the project a recommended condition of approval requires
9 that a new project design shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction
permit, site plan application, and binding site plan recording that complies with the shoreline
10 master programs requirements for significant public access.
11
Conclusions of Law
12
13 1. Authoritv. Staff has suggested that the hearing examiner make a final decision on the permit
14 applications and make a recommendation to the City Council on the development agreement.
However, after inquiries from the examiner, staff stated it would not object if the examiner made
15 recommendations on all permit applications with a final decision to be made by the City Council. It
is concluded that the RMC does not give the examiner the authority to issue final decisions on binding
16 site plan applications when they are merged with development agreements. Since all permits should
be consolidated into one review process, it is concluded that City regulations mandate that the City1 Council make the final decisions on the applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline
g
applications.
19 The primary code basis for this determination is RMC 4-7-230(H)(2), which provides that the City
Council must apply binding site plan criteria for binding site plan applications when those applications
20 are merged with development agreements and that the "final decision on a development agreement
with an application for a binding site plan shall be made by City Council." Further, RMC 4-7-
21 230(I)(4) provides that "except when a binding site plan is merged with a development agreement"
22 significant binding site plans shall be referred to the hearing examiner for review. From these two
provisions, it is clear that the examiner has no authority to make a final decision on binding site plan
23 applications that are merged with development agreements.
24 In contrast to the binding site plan application,shoreline substantial developmentpermits are classified
by RMC 4-8-080(G) as Type II permits (subject to staff as opposed to hearing examiner review) and25
master site plan approval as Type IlI permits (subject to hearing examiner review). In short,the three
26 permit applications subject to this recommendation are subject to three different review processes.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
24
1
RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number
2 procedure". The review process for binding site plans merged with development agreements is not
classified by the RMC. However, the Council's delegation of the hearing on the applications to the
3 eacaminer(see Ex.23)coupled with the code requirement that the City Council make the final decision
mirrors the process classified as Type IV review by RMC 4-8-080(G)(examiner recommendation4
coupled with council final decision). Consequently, the merged DA/binding site plan review will be
5 considered a Type IV review and the master plan and shoreline permit will be consolidated into the
Type IV review process since that is the highest number procedure.
6
2. Vestin. One of the more complicated legal issues involving the project is vesting. The
examiner recommends two actions related to vesting as follows:
g A. Confirmation from City Attorney that Project Subject to Vestin. FOF No. 2 of the April
9 19, 2016 staff report asserts that the applicant vested his applications by the submission of a
complete binding site plan application on February 10, 2010. The proposed development
10 agreement proposes to extend this vesting for a period of ten to fifteen years. The law is not
actually very clear on whether a binding site plan can in fact vest development standards.
11 Since the City Council will be making the final decision on the development agreement,
12 rather than issue a legal opinion that may conflict with that of the City Attorney's Office the
examiner will just take this opportunity to recommend that the Council seek confirmation
13 from the City Attorney's Office that the application is vested to the regulations in effect when
the applicant filed his complete binding site plan application. This vesting analysis is limited
14 to identifying some of the legal issues the City Attorney's Office may want to consider when
evaluating the vesting issue.
15
16 Vesting for the binding site plan comes from two sources, specifically state law and local
ordinance. The state law is RCW 58.17.033, which provides that "a proposed division of
17 land" vests upon the submission of a complete application. There is little question that a
binding site plan constitutes a "division of land." The ambiguity arises from additional
18 language in RCW 58.17.033 that provides that the vesting occurs "...at the time a fully
completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat19approvaloftheshortsubdivision, has been submitted..." A binding site plan is neither a
20 subdivision or short subdivision, but is rather identified as an alternative method of land
division to subdivision and short subdivision review per RCW 58.17.035. If the legislature
21 intended vesting to apply to binding site plans, it would have identified the submission of a
complete application for binding site plan as triggering the time of vesting. It's failure to do
22 so may have been an oversight, but the ambiguity remains.
The second source of vesting is a code provision that was in place at the time the applicant23
submitted his binding site plan application, but is in longer in effect today. RMC 4-7-
24 230(N)(1) provided in 2010 that complete binding site plan applications vest to the binding
site plan ordinance, the zoning code and other development regulations in effect at the time
25 of application. This provision appears to have been repealed in 2012. It raises the interesting
legal question of whether a developer can vest to a vesting ordinance. In Graham
26 Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Associates, 162 Wn. App. 98 (2011), a court ruled that permit
expiration ordinances are not subject to vesting because they don't have a restraining
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
25
1
influence on the development of land. It is somewhat debatable whether a vesting ordinance
2 has a restraining influence over land use and is subject to vesting,or whether it is a procedural
ordinance such as the expiration ordinance in Graham that is not subject to vesting.
3
B. Stormwater Regulations. Modifications are recommended to the proposed development4
agreement to reflect the fact that stormwater regulations are not subject to vesting.
5
The April 2016 staff report states that the project is subject to the 2009 King County
stormwater manual. The stormwater manual currently adopted by Renton is the 2016 King
County stormwater manual, per RMC 4-6-030(C). The state supreme court has recently
ruled that stormwater regulations mandated by the Washington State Department of Ecology
g
DOE") are not subject to the vested rights doctrine. Snohomish Counry v. Pollution
ContYol Hearings Board, 187 Wash.2d 346 (2016). Operation of the City's stormwater
9 system is governed by a Phase II National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPDES") permit issued by DOE. Condition SS.C.4a.iii of the Phase II NPDES permit
10 requires that stormwater regulations enacted by DOE in 2012 in the Phase ll NPDES permit
shall apply to all [land useJ applications submitted on or after July 1, 2017 and shall11applytoapplicationssubmittedpriortoJanuary1, 2017, which have not started
12
construction by January 1, 2022..." In short, new Phase II permit requirements not
integrated into the 2009 King county stormwater manual will apply to the project if it hasn't
13 started construction by 2022. Given the delays the applicant has undergone due to its
superfund and other issues, it is within the realm of possibility that construction may not start
14 by 2022 and, therefore, new stormwater standards required by the Phase II NPDES permit
will apply.
15
16 The proposed development agreement at least partially covers the NPDES requirements in
proposed Section 5.2, which provides that vesting doesn't apply to
17
any new federal or state statutes, rules, regulations, administrative interpretations
1 g or court decisions that add regulatory requirerrtents on the City that it must enforce
19 that are not subject to a "grandfather"or "safe harbor" clause that would delay the
City's enforcement responsibiliry beyond the life of this Agreement."
20
emphasis added).
21
However, the Snohomish County case and the NPDES vesting condition are arguably not22
new" requirements since they were in place prior to the adoption of the development
23 agreement. Further, if the City is required by a state or federal law to exempt something
from vesting, it shouldn't matter whether or not the mandate is "new." "New" as bolded in
24
the quoted language above should be stricken from the development agreement. Further, to
25 remove any doubt about the applicability of the NPDES vesting provision, the following
should be added to the end of Section 5.2: Stormwater regulations are specifically exempt26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
26
1
from vesting to the extent mandated by the Phase II National Pollution Discharge
2 Elimination System permit applicable to the City of Renton.
3 2.5 Zonin / Comprehensive Plan Desi nations. The subject property is zoned and has a
4 comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial/Office/Residential (COR).
5 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.
6 Binding site plan applications are authorized as an optional means of dividing COR zoned property
pursuant to RMC 4-7-230(A)(1). 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
g for master plan review is set by RMC 4-9-200(E). The criteria for binding site plan review is set by
9 RMC 4-7-230(C). 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
10 regulations and SMP policies. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through
11 corresponding conclusions of law.
12 Master Plan
13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
14
a. Master Plans: For masler plan applications, the Ac ministrator rll evaluate complicz ce
15 with the Yevietiv criteria al a level of detail appropriate for ma.ster plans. Mua ter plans will
16 be evaliratedf'or general eompliance with the criteric anc to enstire th«t nothing irr the
1 master plun will p•eclude developrnent of a site plan in full compliance with Ihe criteria.
1 g b. Site Plans: For site plan applieations, the Aclministr atof•will crnalvze the pl zn in c etail
19
valuate compliance n ith the s ecific i egitirement,s disciassed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
20
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
21
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
22 development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval,building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
23 specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
24
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
25 compliance with the following.•
26 a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
27
1
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elenzents, goals, objectives, and policies,
2 especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
3 applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
4 ii. Applicable land use regulations;
5 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
6 iu 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
g Finding No. 222
of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District"C"and consistent with
9 Design District "C" development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No
planned action ordinance or development agreement applies.
10
11 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
12
i. Structures:Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular13
portion of the site;
14
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
15 adjacent properties;
16 iii. Loading artd Storage Areas:Locating, designing and screening storage aNeas, utilities, rooftop
j equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
18 iu Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of rnaintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
19
20 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
21 project; and
22
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
23 brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
24
25 2 References to findings in the staff report are designed by "Finding No.References to findings from this
26 recommendation are"FOF No. ." All references to staff report findings should be considered to incorporate any
updates to the findings addressed in the April 11,2017 memo to the examiner,Ex. 19.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
28
1
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
2 significantly adverse. Specifically,massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(G), circulation by
FOF 6(D), loading and storage areas by FOF 5(I), views by FOF 5(B), landscaping by FOF No. 5(E)
3 and lighting by FOF 5(H).
4
RMC 4-9-200 E 3 c : Ort-Site Im acts:Miti ation o am acts to the site includinPSf P S
5
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
6 and orientation;
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
g characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
9
10 i i. Natura[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
11
iv. Lartdscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
1 and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
13 appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection ofplanting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
14
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
15 adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(C) with the added comment that
16 the mixed-use concept proposed by the applicant provides a well-integrated environment for
residential owners who will have access to a wide mix of both commercial and recreational facilities.
1 Preservation of natural features is limited by the remediation work to be required by the EPA,
however the proposal will enhance public access to the shoreline by the proposed shoreline walking
18 trail, dock and park. Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 5(E)
and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy, define open spaces and generally
19 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
21 users, including:
22 i.Location and Consolidation:Providing access points on side streets orfrontage streets rather than
23 directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingr•ess and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
24
ii. Internal Circulation:Promoting safery and e ciency of the internal circulation system, including
25 the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
26 turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
29
1
iii.Loading and Delivery:Separating loading and delivery areas from parking andpedestrian areas;
2
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
3
4
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings,public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
5
8. The criterion is met. As outlined in FOF No. 6(F), access is consolidated into two points, one
6 on Lake Washington Boulevard and the other on Ripley Way. No connection to the adjoining
properties is possible given the development of the adjoining sites. The proposal will provide for
safe and efficient internal circulation and pedestrian connections as determined in FOF No. 6(D).
g Loading and delivery will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as outlined in FOF No.
9 5(I). The proposal will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities as determined in FOF No.
6(H).
10
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project11focalpointsandtoprovideadequateareasforpassiveandactiverecreationbytheoccupants/users
i 2 of the site.
13 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
14
5
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(: Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
16
10. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for view corridors to the Lake Washington shoreline
1
as determined in FOF No. 5(B). The proposal provides for shoreline access as determined in FOF
1 g No. 6(I).
19 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems:Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
20
21 11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the natural systems at the site
i.e. critical areas)will be protected as required by the EPA ROD and City critical area regulations.
22
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and23facilitiestoaccommodatetheproposeduse.
24
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adeyuate services and facilities as determined in
25 Finding of Fact No. 6.
26 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with developrrtent phases
and estirnated time,fr ames,for phased projects.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
30
1
13. The applicant did not request any phasing with the project application. However, due to the
2 scale of the project staff anticipates that the applicant may want to consider phasing of the
3
infrastructure construction at a later date. If the applicant would like to consider phasing of the
infrastructure construction a phasing plan would be required to be submitted to the City of Renton
4 for review and approval as a part of the first site plan review application. Permit expiration is
5 governed by the proposed development agreement.
6 Binding Site Plan
RMC 4-7-230(C):
g APPROVAL CRITERIA:
9 Approval of a binding site plan or a commercial condominium site shall take place only after the
following criteria are met:
10
1. Legal Lots: The site that is subject to the binding site plan shall consist of one or moreI1contiguous, legally created lots. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the binding site plan
12 procedure shall be legal lots of record. The number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions
shall not exceed the number of lots allowed in the applicable zoning district.New nonconforming
13 lots shall not be created through the binding site plan process.
14 14. The criterion is met. The subject parcel is a legally created lot of record and all proposed lots
would comply with the minimum lot standards of the zone as show in Finding No. 23 of the staff
15 report. The COR zone has no minimum lot size and dimensional standards. However, proposed lots
16 1,6,and 7 would be fully impacted by either wetlands and their buffers or shoreline buffer as identified
through the EIS process with the EPA. As such, a recommended condition of approval reyuires that
l lots 1, 6, and 7 should be designated open space tracts instead of lots because these areas would not be
buildable if created.
18
The portion of the parcel waterward of the OHWM of Lake Washington is not identified as a lot or
19 tract on the binding site plan. A recommended condition of approval requires that this area remains a
20 part of the parcel and shall be identified on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and
placed in a tract unless another mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
21
2. If minimum lot dimensions and building setbacks for each newly created lot cannot be met,
22 the binding site plan shall be processed as a commercial condominium site per subsection D of
this Section or merged with a planned urban development application per RMC 4-9-1 S0.
23
15. Minimum lot dimensions and setbacks are provided; therefore, no commercial condominium
24 site creation is required.
25 3. Commercial or Industrial Property: The site is located within a commercial, industrial, or
26 mixed-use zone.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
31
1
16. The site is located within the mixed-use COR zone. It is eligible for binding site plan approval.
2
4. Zoning Code Requirements:Individual lots created through the binding site plan shall comply
3 with all of the zoning code requirements and development standards of the underlying zoning
district. Where minirrtum lot dimensions or setbacks cannot be met, the binding site plan shall4beprocessedasacommercialcondominiumsiteperRMC4-7-230D.
5
a. New Construction: The site shall be in conformance with the zoning code requirements
6 and development standards of the underlying zoning district at the time the application
is submitted.
7
b. Existing Development: If the site is nonconforming prior to a binding site plan
8 application, the site shall be brought into conformance with the development standards
of the underlying zoning district at the time the application is submitted. In situations9wherethesitecannotbebroughtintoconformanceduetophysicallimitationsorother
10 circumstances, the binding site plan shall not make the site more nonconforming than at
the time a completed application is submitted.
11
c. Under either new construction or existing development, applicants for binding site
12 plan may propose shared signage,parking, and access if they are specifically authorized
per RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES, and other shared improvements as
13 authorized in other sections of the Ciry's development standards.
4 17. The criterion is met. As previously concluded, the proposal is consistent with applicable
15 comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton zoning regulations and design guidelines. The applicant
has not requested shared signage or parking. Shared access between the proposed new lots is proposed
16 as outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Shared parking is required pursuant to Mitigation Document condition
H7. A proposal for shared parking shall be submitted with site plan review application. If shared
17 parking is proposed between lots and approved by the City at site plan review, this should be noted on
the binding site plan prior to recording.18
19
20 5. Building Code Requirements: All building code requirements have been met per RMC 4-5-
010.
21
18. The criterion is met. All building code requirements will be reviewed at the time of building
22 permit approval.
23 6. Infrastructure Provisions:Adequate provisions, either on the face of the binding site plan or
24 in a supporting document, have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways,
water supplies, open space, solid waste, and sanitary wastes,for the entire property covered by
25 the binding site plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
32
1
19. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 6, the applicant has made adequate
2 provisions for all drainageways, streets, water supplies, open space, solid waste and sanitary waste.
This criterion is satisfied.
3
7. Access to Public Rights-of-Way and Utilities: Each parcel created by the binding site plan4shallhaveaccesstoapublicstreet, water supply, sanitary sewer, and utilities by means of direct
5 access or access easement approved by the City.
6 20. The criterion is met. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5(F), each lot will have access to a
private road, which in turn will connect to a public road via the two access points of the site. As noted
7 in FOF No. 6(A), water and sewer lines are in proximity to the project site. Staff have determined that
each lot will be served by water, sanitary sewer, and utilities as proposed. However, a phasing plan
g for the installation of the access and utilities was not provided with the application, therefore a
9 recommended condition of approval requires that all common facilities including but not limited to
roadways, utilities, common landscaping, and public art/gateway features shall be permitted,
10 constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of Renton Construction Inspector prior
to Binding Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot, unless
11 a separate phasing plan is approved through site plan review.
12 8. Shared Conditions: The Administrator may authorize sharing of open space,parking, access,
signage and other improvements among contiguous properties subject to the binding site plan13
and the provisions of RMC 4-4-080E3, 4-4-080I7, and 4-4-IOOES. Conditions of use,
14 maintenance, and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space,parking, access, signage
and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants,
15 easements or other similar properly recorded mechanism.
16 21. The criterion is met. Vehicular access and parking will be shared as noted in COL No. 17. No
shared signage has been proposed. A condition of approval reyuires the applicant to provide a covenant
1 or HOA documents for City review and approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA
18 responsibilities for the maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site
Plan and Master Site Plan. The condition requires that the approved documentation shall be recorded
19 'th the Binding Site Plan.
20 9. Future Development: The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any
subsequent development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded
21 binding site plan.
22 22. As conditioned,the criterion is met. The provided binding site plan does not contain a provision
23 for requiring subsequent development of the site to be in conformance with the approved and recoded
binding site plan. As such, a recommended condition of approval requires compliance with this
24 standard.
25 10. Dedication Statement: Where lands are required or proposed for dedication, the applicant
shall provide a dedication statement and acknowledgement on the binding site plan.
26
23. No dedication has been approved for the subject project.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
33
1
I1. Suitable Physical Characteristics: A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of
2 flood, inundation, or wetland conditions, or construction of protective improvements may be
required as condition of approval.
3
24. The criterion is met. The physical characteristics identified in the criterion are regulated by the4
City's critical area regulations. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(A),the proposal complies with the
5 City's critical area regulations.
6 Shoreline Permit
RMC 4-9-190(B)(7): In order to be approved, the Administrator of the Department of Community and
g Economic Development or designee mustfind that a proposal is consistent with the following criteria:
9 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
10 that have been modified by approval of a shoreline variance.
11 b. All policies of the Shoreline Master Program appropriate to the shoreline area designation
12 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,
13 Provided it is demonstrated to the Administrator of the Departrrient of Community and Economic
Development or designee that the proposal is clearly consistent with the overall goals, objectives and
14 intent of the Shoreline Master Program.
15 c. For projects located on Lake Washington the criteria in RCW 90.58.020 regarding shorelines
16 of statewide significance and relevant policies and regulations of the Shoreline Master Program shall
also be adhered to.
17
25. The proposal complies with all applicable shoreline policies and regulations as detailed
18 in Finding No. 29 of the staff report. In summary, commercial shoreline use regulations requires the
proposal to provide for significant shoreline access. This access is provided as determined in FOF No.
19 6(I). The commercial use regulations further reyuire that parking is to be provided at frequent locations
20 and is discouraged along the water's edge. This requirement is met as surface parking and structured
parking are both proposed a minimum of 100 feet back from the OHWM. The commercial use
21 regulations also require that commercial development incorporate recreational opportunities along the
shoreline. This is met for the reasons identified in FOF 6(I). The development agreement adds a 1.3-
22 acre park along the shoreline to further integrate recreational opportunities. Shoreline regulations
further require that view impacts be mitigated and the applicant has provided for view mitigation as
23 determined in FOF No. 5(B). Shoreline regulations impose a 50-foot setback for the proposal. EIS
24 mitigation requires a 100-foot setback. The proposal complies with this 100-foot setback except for a
proposed water line. A recommended condition of approval reyuires the water line to be moved outside
25 the 100-foot setback.
26 The staff report does not address compliance with RMC 4-3-090(K), which requires applicants for
shoreline projects to abate, avoid or otherwise control the harmful effects of shoreline development on
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
34
1
shoreline ecological resources. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the impacts of
2 the proposal on shoreline ecological resources have been mitigated and controlled as required by RMC
4-3-090(K).
3
4
5 DECISION
6 For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, all applicable review criteria for the
applicant's master plan, binding site plan and shoreline substantial development permit applications
7 are met by the proposal. Consequently, it is recommended that the City Council approve the
applications, subject to the conditions identified below. It is also recommended that the City Councilgapprovetheproposeddevelopmentagreementforthereasonsidentifiedinthesummaryofthis
9
recommendation, subject to the modifications recommended in Conclusion of Law No. 2(B). The
permit applications should be subject to the following conditions:
10
1. The applicant shall comply with the 91 mitigation measures included in the Mitigation
1 Document dated, August of 2015.
2. All lots shall meet maXimum building lot coverage either individually or combined
12 through site plan review. The combined coverage may include open space tracts set aside
13 through the binding site plan.
3. All common facilities including but not limited to roadways (including curb, gutter,
14 sidewalk, and street trees or landscape strips), utilities, street lights, street names, common
15 landscaping(including irrigation),trails (including signage and amenities), public
art/gateway features, and habitat restoration/recreation as determined by the EPA ROD
16 shall be permitted, constructed, and determined substantially complete by the City of
1 Renton Construction Inspector and Current Planning Project Manager prior to Binding
Site Plan Recording and prior to issuance of a building permit for any individual lot,
18 unless a separate phasing plan is approved and if the Administrator determines that any
19 delay in satisfying these requirements will not adversely impact the public health, safety
or welfare.
20 4. The minimum partial sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier(buffers) shall be
21 maintained along the north and south property line as shown in Exhibit 11 and shall be
identified on the recorded binding site plan, as reyuired by Mitigation Measures E1, E2,
22 and F5.
23
5. A minimum of 10 feet of screening landscaping shall be required behind the sidewalk
when the sidewalk is adjacent to at grade parking structures. A detailed landscape plan for
24 each site shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
6. Lots 1, 6, and 7 shall become open space tracts and shall not be recorded as lots on the
Binding Site Plan. All critical areas and their buffer shall be contained within these tracts
26 as referenced and required by Mitigation Measure B5. A Native Growth Protection
Easement shall be recorded and noted on the face of the recorded Binding Site Plan.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
35
1
7. If shared parking is proposed between lots and is approved by the City at site plan review,
2 this should be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
3
8. Roads A—C shall become private streets on the recorded binding site plan and an
easement for public access and emergency services shall be recorded over Roads A, C,
4 and B. The public access easement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
and Property Services Division prior to binding site plan recording.5
9. The recorded binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any subsequent
6 development of the site shall be in conformance with the approved and recorded binding
site plan. The required statement should be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Property Services prior to recording.
g 10. Public trail signage shall be installed identifying that the trail is for public use and the
hours of public use. The trail signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current9
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
10 construction permit application. The trail and associated signage shall be installed prior to
Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.11
11. An easement for public trail access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
12 access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
12. Off-site improvements identified in the Mitigation Document, including but not limited to13MitigationMeasures:
14 B 10 -public trail
15
G2—public trail and open space
G3 — Frontage improvements, including sidewalks along the west side of Lake
16 Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N.
1
G7—trail signage
G9—crosswalk
1 g G10—trail amenities
19 H3 —frontage improvements along Lake Washington Blvd. and Ripley Lane N
20
H4—trail
HS —traffic calming measures
21 H8—fire access road
22 H 10—bicycle lane
H11 — H15 — off site traffic improvement mitigation, such as channelization and
23
signalization
24 shall be designed, permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the
Current Planning Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary
25 Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
13. The following street classification shall be noted on the binding site plan: Road A, B, and26
C are Pedestrian Oriented Streets, and Roads D and E are Internal Roads.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
36
1
14. The private access at the Barbee Mill Access shall include frontage improvements
2 matching the south side of the access, including a landscaped planter and sidewalk to be
3 provided on the north side. The new private access to be located at the Ripley Lane
Seahawks Way) access shall include 8 feet wide landscape planter and 6 foot wide
4 sidewalk on south side of the access. These off-site improvements shall be designed,
permitted, constructed, and substantial complete as determined by the Current Planning5
Project Manager and the Construction Inspector, prior to Temporary Occupancy of the
6 first building on the project site
15. Either commercial uses are provided along the street frontages of roads A, B, and C or a
minimum 10 foot landscape screen is located between the sidewalk and the parking
g garage. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot specific site plan
review.
9
16. Parking garage curb cuts shall be reduced to the minimum necessary to improve
10 uninterrupted pedestrian mobility along Road A and C and curb cuts should not be
permitted along Road B. Access points to the parking decks shall be consolidated with the11
ground level parking garages. Compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated at lot
IZ specific site plan review.
17. Vehicular access points to the parking garages shall be restricted to one entrance and exit
13
per 500 linear feet as measured horizontally along the street, unless a secondary access is
14 required per fire and/or building code. Compliance with this condition shall be
demonstrated at lot specific site plan review.
15
18. To ensure the semi-private plaza spaces meet the intent of the design district a detailed
16 design of these areas shall be submitted for review and approval with lot specific site plan
review. Each plaza area shall provide a unique space that includes both landscaping and
1 amenities as approved by the Director.
1 g 19. To ensure that all uses receive eyual signage opportunities an overall sign design package
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
19 to the approval of any sign permit for the site.
20 20. Minimum setbacks from parent parcels edges shall be as follows:
a. 100 feet from the OHWM of Lake Washington
21 b. 40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
22 c. 38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawk's Training Facility)
21. To ensure minimum view corridors are maintained Road B shall maintain a minimum
23 width of 74 feet and the semi-private plaza spaces on top of the parking garages shall
24 maintain a minimum width of 80 feet.
22. West elevations of the building proposed on Lots 2 and 5 shall be re-designed to reduce to
25 the parking garage walls view from Lake Washington to ensure the structures on the lake
26 maintain a relation to the natural characteristic and site amenities (trail, etc.). Design
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
37
1
features could include landscape berming and/or architectural details. Detail design of
2 these buildings shall be completed at site plan review.
3 23. Secure, weather protected bike parking facilities shall be provided for the residential units
on site. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 stalls per unit. Bike parking for
4 the residents shall not be located on balconies or in the unit. A residential bike parking
plan shall be provided with lot specific site plan review.
5
24. A compatible architectural design shall be maintained throughout the Quendall Terminals
6 site and a consistence evaluation shall be completed at site plan review for each building
proposed on lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.
25. Usable public plaza space shall be provided along Lake Washington and the NW corer of
g the building on Lot 5 and the SW corner of the building on Lot 2. The details of the
design of this space shall be included in the lot specific site plan review applications for
9
lots 2 and 5.
10 26. Details shall be included on the final Binding Site Plan identifying compliance with the
infrastructure provisions of RMC 4-7-230. This shall be reviewed by the Plan Review
ro ect mana er Current Plannin ro ect mana er and Pro ert Services for a rovalPJg gP J g P Y pP
12 prior to recording.
27. If the ROD and NRD Settlement results in the project's inability to comply with the13
critical area regulations as currently designed and assumed in the baseline conditions (i.e.
4 the buffers of the recreated wetlands can be averaged within proposed lots 1 and 6) Lots 1
and 6 shall be increased to ensure compliance with the critical areas regulations and that
I S
all wetlands and associated buffers are contained in what will become NGPA tracts. If the
16 change to the overall development is considered a Major Adjustment to an approved site
development plan per RMC 4-9-200J a new application would be required.
1
28. A bicycle lane shall be constructed on both the north and south side of Ripley Lane
1 g Seahawks Way) with or without the construction of the multi-purpose trail.
29. The applicant shall amend the street cross section as shown in Exhibit 16 at the time of
19
construction permit review.
20 30. A stormwater covenant for allowing the City access to inspect the stormwater facilities
built on site and assigning maintenance responsibility of the BMPs to the property
21 owners/developer/HOA shall be required to be recorded with the binding site plan.
31. To ensure that all facilities including but not limited to, stormwater, common landscaping,
23 open space, sidewalks and roadways, street lights, open space tracts, etc. shall be
maintained, the applicant shall provide a covenant or HOA documents for City review and24
approval identifying the developer/property owners/HOA responsibilities for the
25 maintenance of all common facilities constructed as a part of the Binding Site Plan and
Master Site Plan. Approved documentation shall be recorded with the Binding Site Plan.
26
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
38
1
32. Staff recommended Condition No. 32 removed per Ex. 19 April 11, 2017 memo to
2 examiner.
3 33. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement shall be provided to the City of Renton for the public
4 sewer mains located in the private streets. The easement shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department prior to
5 binding site plan recording.
6 34. A minimum 15-foot-wide easement for utility and maintenance shall be provided to the City
of Renton for the public water lines located onsite. The easement shall be submitted for
review and approval by the City of Renton Property Services and Public Works Department
prior to binding site plan recording.
g
35. The Binding Site Plan shall be recorded prior to temporary occupancy of any building on
9 the subject site.
36. A revised sewer report shall be submitted with the construction permit application that
10
Will reevaluate the existing Baxter lift station and identify the necessary allowance, which
11 should be 1,500 gallons/acre/day, or as otherwise identified by the City Public Works
Department.
12
37. Any existing utilities under the proposed building or that will result in a conflict with the
13 proposed binding site plan, shall be required to be abandoned and removed, and the
easement shall be relinquished or amended subject to City approvaL Final documentation
14 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to Binding Site Plan recording.
15 38. The proposed sewer manhole should be relocated outside of the landscape island in the
center of Road B to ensure the City's sewer maintenance department can access the
16 facility.
1 39. Before construction permit and building permit issuance an agreement should be
completed for the reyuired off-site improvements between the developer and all other
1 g affected properties. Such agreement shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
19 Manager with the construction permit application and the first building permit application
for the site.
20 40. All new motor vehicle travel lanes as shown on Exhibit 18 shall be constructed based on the
21 timing identified above per condition of approval 12.
41. A fire lane and utility maintenance access road along Lake Washington extending along the
22 front of Lots 2 and 5, connecting to Road B terminus and the surface parking at either end
23 shall be incorporated into the design of the buildings on Lots 2 and 5. This fire lane and
utility maintenance access road shall feature pedestrian amenities such as furniture, public
24 art, water features, etc. Design of the fire lane and utility maintenance access road
compliance with this condition shall be reviewed at the time of lot specific site plan review.
25
42. The portion of the parcel water word of the OHWM of Lake Washington shall be identified
26 on the final binding site plan as an undevelopable area and placed in a tract unless another
mechanism is approved by the Property Services Division.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
39
1
43. Documentation shall be provided to the City of Renton identifying rights for public
2 vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed development across the right-of-way.
This legal documentation shall be noted on the final binding site plan and shall be
3 recorded concurrently with the binding site plan, if not already recorded. The City of
Renton shall have final approval of acceptable legal access documentation.4
5 44. The following conditions shall be complied with prior to individual site plan review
application for any lot included in the Binding Site Plan, Binding Site Plan recording, and6constructionpermitissuance.
I. Upon the EPA, ROD and NRD settlement, a density worksheet shall be submitted
to the Current Planning Project Manager identifying compliance with net density
g for the overall site. Once compliance is identified, the maximum number of units
9 per lot shall be recorded on the final binding site plan to allow the maximum
permitted density to be shared among the entire property.
10 jI. A final detailed landscape plan and associated irrigation plan shall be submitted
11 for review and approval for the common areas, unless a phasing plan for common
landscaping installation is approved. If a phasing plan is submitted and approved,
12 a final detailed landscape plan, or phase thereof, shall be submitted in compliance
13 with the approved phasing plan.
II1. A parking plan shall be provided specifically identifying public parking for the
14 proposed shoreline trail, in compliance with Mitigation Measure G4, for review
15 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the Park Planning and
Natural Resources Director. The approved public parking shall be identified on
16 the recording Binding Site Plan.
1 IV. A site plan application, construction permit application or the recording of the
Binding Site shall not be submitted to the City for Review and approval prior to a
1 g Record of Decision (ROD) completed by the EPA. A copy of the final ROD
19 issued by the EPA shall be submitted to the City of Renton to verify the assumed
baseline assumptions were correct and additional SEPA review or major project
20 changes are not necessary as required in Mitigation Measure C 10.
21 V. The applicant shall provide an updated site plan and any other necessary materials
to identify compliance with mitigation measures G2, G7, G10, and G11 for
22 review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and the
23 Community Services Administrator.
VI. A "gateway feature" package shall be prepared for review and approval by the
24 Current Planning Project Manager. If such gateway features would be considered
25 common amenities such as public art or entry elements these shall be installed
pursuant to condition of approval 3.
26 VII. An update site plan shall be provided identifying a complete connected pedestrian
pathway system, including an evaluation of on-site crosswalks to ensure
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
40
1
pedestrian safety. The pedestrian pathway system shall be submitted for review
2 and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall demonstrate
3 compliance with mitigation measure H3, H4 and H9. The final approved
pedestrian pathway system shall be shown on the binding site plan upon
4 recording.
VIII. An updated site plan shall be provided identifying the required 1.8 acres of active5
recreation area, per mitigation measure G8, or a plan shall be provided for review
6 and approval of the Current Planning Project Manager to identify which portion
of the 1.8 acres would be allocated to which lot.
IX. A site lighting plan shall be provided identifying compliance with mitigation
g measure F 13 and H9 and the design standards for the common areas, including
but not limited to, sidewalks, roadways, gateway features, public art, special9
landscape treatment, open space/plaza, and trails, for review and approval by the
10 Current Planning Project Manager, Public Works Department, and Community
Services.
11
X. Doucmentation shall be provided to the City identifing rights to constrct a
12 crossing for vehicles and pedestrians across King County ownered rail road right-
of-way.
13 XI. Bicycle parking shall be provided in the form of bike racks for commercial and
14 public trail users. Bike parking should be provided at a ratio of 10 percent of the
required parking stalls for the commercial uses. An updated site plan shall be
15 provided identifying common bike rack locations, numbers, and design.
16 XII. A detailed trail design, identifying compliance with mitigation measures B10, G3,
G2, G10, G11 and H4, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current
17 Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Department.
1 g XIII. An updated site plan shall be submitted for reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and Plan Reviewer identifying compliance with the
19 amended street cross sections, in Exhibit 16.
20 XIV. Road A street design shall be amended to remove the center turn lane and the
design shall be reflected on the required updated site plan, as conditioned above
21 under XIII.
22 XV. The following utility line design changes shall be required and an updated
conceptual utility plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Plan
23 Reviewer:
24 a. Relocate about 870 feet of existing 12-inch water main along the property
frontage to be within the new access road referred to as Road A. The
25 existing water line cannot be accessible for repair and maintenance due to
26 the location of the proposed new Road A.
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
41
1
b. Relocate the new 12-inch water main on the west side of the project to be
2 within the paved 20-foot fire access road if located outside the 100-foot
3 buffer. The water main must be located at least 10 feet away from the
building foundation and outside of the shoreline riparian area.
4 c. Minimum 15 feet easement should be provided for the water main.
d. The waterline shall be relocated outside the 100-shoreline buffer.5
e. Update utility line minimum separation standards per City of Renton
6 regulations.
XVL If the EPA ROD and any NRD settlement eliminates the significant public access
from the project, which includes: 1) A shoreline trial with viewpoints, interpretive
8 signage, and amenities as identified in the Mitigation Document; 2) A fire lane
and utility maintenance access road long the lake side of the development of Lots9
2 and 5; 3) Large plazas at the terminus of Road B; and 4) Public parking a new
10 public access plan shall be submitted identifying compliance with the significant
public access standards of the Shoreline Master Program. The new public access
11
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
12 XVIL A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program and draft shared parking
agreement shall be submitted for any and all proposed development lots, identifying13
compliance with Mitigation Measures H2, H7 and F12. The TDM and shared
14 parking agreements shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and the Public Works Department, Transportation Division.
15 XVIIL A final detailed master site plan shall be submitted to the City for Review and
16 Approval by the Current Planning Project Manager that incorporates both the
specific changes identified in the Enhanced Alternative and all the conditions of
1
project approvaL The final detailed master plan shall be approved prior to the
1 g approval of any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
XIX. Public Art, fountains, or other street activation features proposed be located in the
19 roadways shall be identified with the detailed master site plan and constructed and
20 installed as a part of the associated roadway/infrastructure construction.
XX. A detailed public park design, identifying compliance with the Development
21 Agreement, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning
22 Project Manager and the Community Services Department prior to the approval of
any site-specific site plan review or recording of the binding site plan.
23
24 45. An easement for public park access shall be recorded with the binding site and public
access shall be noted on the binding site plan prior to recording.
25
26 46. Public park signage shall be installed identifying that the park is for public use and the
hours of public use. The park signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
MASTER PLAN, BINDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
42
1
Planning Project Manager and the Community Services Administrator with the
2 construction permit application. The park and associated signage shall be installed prior
to Temporary Occupancy of the first building on the project site.
3
4 Decision issued May 9, 2017.
5
c.--'_--..6
Phi A.(Ibce ht
Hearing Examiner
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, BiNDING SITE PLAN, SSDP and DA
43