Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Solera_REVISED_Final_Decision_LUA20_000305.pdf1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 1 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Solera Master Plan Modification to Master Plan, Site Plan and Preliminary Plat; Street Modification. LUA20,000305, SA-M, PP, SA-H, MOD REVISED1 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant is requesting a modification to the previously approved Master Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval, Site Plan Review for Blocks A and B of the Master Site Plan, and Street Modification for a proposed mixed-use development that would include 651 multi-family residential units and approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space located on a 10.8-acre site at 2902 NE Sunset Blvd. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcription of the proceeding, as well as a recording of the proceeding, is available from the City Clerk’s Office upon request and payment of any applicable fees. 1 Conditions No. 1d and 5 and the reference to the school impact fee identified in FOF No. 6I have all been revised as a result of a Request for Reconsideration from the City of Renton dated March 12, 2021, admitted as Exhibit 57. No other revisions other than the addition of Exhibit 57 have been made to the Final Decision since its issuance on February 18, 2021. No need for response to the Request for Reconsideration has been found since the revisions to the conditions were agreed upon by staff and Applicant during the hearing and no objections or concerns were raised by the public. Also, no public written or verbal testimony was submitted on the application. The correction to the school impact fee amount has also not been circulated for response since it cannot be reasonably disputed and has no substantive affect on the requirements placed upon the Applicant. The required impact fee amount is identified for informational purposes only and may be a different amount when it is imposed at the time due. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 2 2 Exhibits Exhibits 1-47 identified at page 2 of the February 2, 2021 Staff Report were entered during the February 2, 2021 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the February 2, 2021 public hearing as well: Exhibit 48 Staff Power Point Exhibit 49 Standstill Agreement w/ Two Amendments Exhibit 50 COR Maps Exhibit 51 Google Earth Vicinity Aerials Exhibit 52 Applicant Power Point Exhibit 53 Michael Read Resume Exhibit 54 Jeremy Febus Resume Exhibit 55 Mark Stine Resume Exhibit 56 Draft Solera Modified Conditions Exhibit 57 March 12, 2021 Request for Reconsideration FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Tom Neubauer, Solera Manager LLC, 10900 NE 8th Street, Suite 120, Bellevue, WA 98004 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the subject applications on February 2, 2021 via Zoom and the hearing was left open through 5 pm, February 3, 2021 for written comment for persons who may have been unable to participate virtually due to technical issues. Substantive: 3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant is requesting a modification to the previously approved Master Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval, Site Plan Review for Blocks A and B of the Master Site Plan, and Street Modification for a proposed mixed-use development that would include 651 multi-family residential units and approximately 38,900 square feet of commercial space located on a 10.8 acres site at 2902 NE Sunset Blvd. The subject property would contain two mixed use buildings along the NE Sunset Blvd frontage, referred to as Blocks A and B on the master site plan. Blocks A and B would contain 555 multi-family units, of which 277 units would be affordable, and each building would contain ground floor commercial space. The subject property would also contain approximately 96 fee-simple townhomes, referred to as Blocks C and D in the master plan, utilizing the unit lot subdivision provisions. Residential density on the subject property would result in approximately 71 dwelling units per net 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 3 3 acre. The master plan would contain approximately 1,024 off-street parking spaces located within the mixed-use buildings, townhome units, and a 13-space primary surface load/unload zone. The existing Greater Hi-Lands Shopping Center would be removed. Public street improvements would be constructed providing access through the site. Private alleys are proposed for vehicle access to townhome units. Street frontage improvements would be constructed along the site’s periphery. Proposed drainage improvements include the use of bioretention planters and an underground infiltration facility. The subject property was originally approved for master plan, conditional use and street modification by examiner decision dated December 11, 2018. The Applicant’s modified master site plan (Exhibit 2) requests modifications to this approval that include an increase in multifamily dwelling units from 521 to 555, a decrease in townhome units from 152 to 96, an increase in parking stalls from 906 to 1,024, no significant change in commercial space (staying at approximately 39,000 square fe et), wider internal streets and angled parking along NE Sunset Boulevard to replace previously proposed parallel parking. As previously noted, site plan review for the first two phases, for Blocks A and B, is reviewed in this consolidated application. A separate site plan review approval and unit lot subdivision would be required for phase three (3) referred to as Blocks C and D in the modified master site plan. A final modification is a reduction in phases from five to three. The Applicant has submitted a modified phasing plan (Exhibit 15) in which the Applicant proposes a sequence to construct Block A along with internal and frontage infrastructure in the initial phase and Block B in phase two (2). Blocks C and D would be constructed in a future phase three (3) that would require a separate site plan review prior to construction. The Applicant’s street modification request is to RMC 4-6-060 to increase the width of the residential access street standards to 59-feet along Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St resulting in an additional six 6) foot parking lane. In addition, the Applicant is requesting to further modify the parallel parking along NE Sunset Blvd, a granted street modification approval in the initial master plan (Exhibit 3), to angled parking. The initial Solera Master Plan decision (Exhibit 3) provided conditional use permit approval for an increased maximum height for Block A (previously referred to as Mixed Use Building A) of 75-feet and increased maximum height for Block B (previously referred to as Mixed Use Building B) of 85- feet. As shown on the Block A and Block B elevations (Exhibits 23 and 24), proposed heights are less than initially proposed with each building approximately 70-feet in height, thereby meeting the maximum heights granted by the master plan’s conditional use permit. Staff testified that they found the impacts of the currently proposed building height to be fully addressed in the prior conditional use approval. The current application is vested to the previous maximum height for mixed use buildings of 60-feet and the previously approved conditional use permit remains in effect to authorize the excess height in the current proposal. As proposed, Blocks A and B each have a mix of affordable and market multi-family dwelling units. This was a change from the project as previously approved, which didn’t include any affordable units. Shortly before staff completed its staff report for the current proposal, the Applicant advised staff that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 4 4 one block will be entirely affordable units and the other market rate. Since staff have not had an opportunity to review the change, it will be processed as a new modification to the project approved by this proceeding, governed by the modification review procedures addressed in Condition No. 21 of this decision. At hearing, the Applicant testified that the change in dwelling mix will not result in any change to the building footprints or facades. 4. Surrounding Uses. Multifamily residential is located to the north and west of the project. A fire station is also located to the north. To the east is commercial retail and to the south is commercial retail, a library and a park. All surrounding areas are zoned CV. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows: A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas (e.g. wetlands, streams, geographically hazardous areas) on the project site. The existing site is almost entirely paved or contains existing structures that will be removed. B. Tree Protection. As conditioned, the proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards and thus provides for adequate protection of trees. As noted in the staff report, the Applicant is required to retain three on-site trees and is only proposing to retain one of them. As a result, as required by the City’s tree retention standards, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide for 24 caliper inches of replacement trees to mitigate the inability to retain three trees. C. External Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. The project has been appropriately designed to mitigate aesthetic/compatibility impacts caused by its relatively large mass and scale to some surrounding uses. The Applicant proposes to construct the larger mixed-use buildings along NE Sunset Blvd, a principal arterial in the City and adjacent to other intensive uses such as shopping centers that are also within the CV zoning classification. The project transitions north, west, and south with 3-story townhome development as it nears less intensive multi-family and single-family development patterns. The transition in scale across the development from NE Sunset Boulevard to Harrington Place NE provides a development pattern that allows for a transition from a primary commercial center along an arterial to a residential neighborhood along residential access roads. A solar study was completed for the initial master plan application (Exhibit 3) that found the proposed mixed-use buildings would not shade neighboring civic spaces at the Sunset Neighborhood Park or Highlands Library. Summer afternoon shading would occur on NE Sunset Blvd. The proposed modification would likely increase shading on portions of Kirkland Ave NE due to the expanded footprint of Block A. Shading would extend into the morning hours during the Spring Equinox and Winter Solstice, however these months the sun is often obscured by clouds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 5 5 D. Lighting. As conditioned, the proposal will provide adequate lighting for safety and pedestrian circulation while also preventing unnecessary light spillage on adjoining properties. The Applicant has prepared a lighting plan, Ex. 35. As shown in the plan, the Applicant has proposed wall sconce lighting along all facades of Block A and Block B and awning mounted downlighting along the NE Sunset Blvd frontage. A pole mounted light and wall mounted lights are shown to accommodate the daycare pickup/drop-off and service area on the southeast façade of Block B behind the Shell fuel facility. Detail sheets of the fixtures were not provided to ensure they complement the development’s architecture and design. Additionally, the photometric component of the lighting plan indicates 0.0 foot-candles measurements in in plazas and other pedestrian oriented spaces. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised lighting plan with the building permit application for Block A and Block B that includes detail sheets of all light fixtures and their supports. Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled and consistent with the design of the site and provide adequate foot-candle illumination in pedestrian areas as shown on a revised photometric calculation. The photometric calculations of the Applicant’s lighting plan do not identify foot candle trespass offsite, with the exception of abutting sidewalks. Lighting placement and glare impacts w ill be further reviewed with the building permit application. The City’s lighting standards regulate excessive lighting onto adjacent properties and assure that the proposal will not generate excessive light and glare. E. Views. According to the staff report, it is not anticipated the new buildings would result in substantially obscuring existing views of attractive natural features, including shorelines or Mt. Rainier. There is no evidence to the contrary in the administrative record. 6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be provided by the City of Renton. B. Fire and Police Protection. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. The 2021 fire impact fees are 964.53 per multifamily unit, $1.25 per square foot for retail, and $5.92 square feet for restaurant. Assessed fees are based on the City of Renton Fee Schedule. The fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. C. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal will provide for adequate parks and open space. A Park Impact Fee will be required for the future dwellings. The current Park Impact Fee is $1,977.62. As to open space, City development standards require 27,750 square feet of open space for the proposed 555 dwelling units located within Blocks A and B. As shown on the open space plan (Exhibit 36), the Applicant proposes approximately 41,586 square feet of exterior open 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 6 6 space. Floor plans for Blocks A and B (Exhibits 19 and 20) provide approximately 8,200 square feet of combined interior recreation facilities. The largest exterior common open space areas would be located on the podiums of Blocks A and B. As shown on the open space plan, Block A podium would contain 19,301 square feet of space and contain planters, seating areas, pergola, barbeque, shuffleboard, and children’s play area. Block B podium would contain 18,156 square feet and contain planters, seating, pergola, barbeque, community garden, and children’s play area. Air, sun, and light exposure are provided via the orientation of the buildings and openings at the two ends of each of the podiums. Ground level open spaces include the 3,397 square foot children’s play area on the south side of Block B and 732 square foot plaza space on the northwest side of Block B. Interior recreation spaces for Blocks A and B as shown on their respective floor plans Exhibits 19 and 20) provide gymnasium, fitness, pool, and game room space. Approximately 3,600 square feet is provided in Block A and Block B contains approximately 4,600 square feet. D. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable pedestrian transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Further, the proposal provides for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties. The mixed-use buildings on Blocks A and B would nearly cover the entirety of their respective parcels resulting in the abutting public sidewalks as the principal pedestrian circulation. As shown on the conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 17) Block A contains a plaza area near the intersection of Kirkland Ave NE and NE Sunset Blvd with a 15-foot- wide pathway and landscaping. The main residential entries for Blocks A and B located at the intersection of Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St each contain an open area plaza that transitions into the public sidewalk. Finally, a six (6) foot wide pathway is located parallel to the daycare entry on the southeast corner of Block B to accommodate the pickup and drop- off area. This pathway narrows to approximately four (4) feet wide as it connects to the NE 10th St sidewalk. These areas contain clear site lines as they abut the public sidewalk and the daycare pathway also directly abuts a glazed portion of the building. New sidewalks would be provided along all street frontages with a new 12-foot-wide sidewalk located along NE Sunset Blvd. E. Vehicle Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable vehicle transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The project’s internal public street alignment remains consistent with the initially approved master plan. Sunset Lane NE would extend northeasterly from NE 10th St connecting the site to Sunset Neighborhood Park, and align the spine road with Jefferson Ave NE. An east/west connection would be provided via NE 11th St connecting Harrington Pl NE to NE Sunset Blvd. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 7 7 F. Street Improvements. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation improvements. Public works staff have reviewed the proposal for site plan level conformance to City street standards and has found the proposal to be generally consistent. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Transpo Group for the 2018 master plan approval. The site generated traffic volumes were calculated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, (2017). Based on the calculations provided, the traffic study found conformance to adopted level of service standards with no need for off-site traffic improvements other than those funded by the transportation impact fees. The Applicant submitted a transportation consistency analysis prepared by TENW, dated November 24, 2020 (Exhibit 38), that provides an addendum to the initial master plan Exhibit 3) traffic impact analysis (TIA). The updated analysis removes the existing bank and drive through that were assumed to remain in the initial master plan decision and updates average trip rates or regression equations for Mid-Rise Multifamily, Low-Rise Multifamily, Daycare Center, and Retail while removing the Senior Housing trip rate from the initial analysis. The updated analysis incorrectly identifies 552 units multifamily within Blocks A and B and 35,017 square feet of retail. The analysis found the proposed modification to the master plan would result in a net change of 11 fewer AM peak hour trips and net addition of 29 PM peak hour trips at full buildout of the plan. The analysis indicated the changes from the initial TIA did not warrant additional traffic analysis or review of traffic operational impacts. A timely agency comment submitted by Washington State Department of Transportation WSDOT) (Exhibit 10) requesting the Applicant update the TIA to include analysis of the northbound and southbound I-405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. As noted in the City correspondence with WSDOT, this analysis is needed for documentation purposes and to comply with WSDOT procedural standards. WSDOT indicated that the agency would not be seeking mitigation based on results of the updated analysis. Therefore, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the civil construction permit application that provides analysis of the northbound and southbound I-405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. The revised TIA shall also provide a correction to the total number of units in Blocks A and B and correction to the total square footage of retail space. The Applicant will be required to construct street improvements meeting the City’s Street Standards set forth in RMC 4-6-060 unless otherwise modified. Internal streets to the development that would be improved are Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St. The street sections include a modified 59-foot-wide ROW (Exhibit 39). Both streets would include 32-foot pavement width that would provide two (2) 10-foot travel lanes and two (2) 6-foot parking lanes. On each side of the paved street, 0.5-foot curbs, eight (8) foot planter strips with street trees, and five (5) foot sidewalks would be constructed. As conditioned, the Applicant is required to construct a concrete raised intersection at NE 11th St and Sunset Lane NE. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 8 8 Portions of NE 11th St within development would require a street vacation. The street vacation process requires separate approval from City Council. As conditioned, the Applicant is required to receive preliminary approval of the necessary street vacation prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. Frontage improvements to NE 12th St., Kirkland Ave NE, and Harrington Pl NE would remain as indicated in the initial master plan decision and shown on the road plan (Exhibit 39). A modification to the NE Sunset Blvd. frontage, will provide angled parking instead of the initially approved parallel parking. The proposal passed the City’s Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D with the initial master plan decision, which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future payment of appropriate Transportation Impact Fees. G. Vehicular Access. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate access, with all units having access to public streets. As shown on the modified master site plan (Exhibit 2), access is provided on side streets with the exception of Block B where an existing ingress/egress easement is located abutting the Shell fuel facility. Utilizing this existing easement provides enhanced circulation for the daycare pickup/drop-off and better accessibility for refuse/recycling haulers. Block B would contain only three (3) driveways, which minimizes potential pedestrian conflicts with the relatively large parcel. The unit lot subdivisions would gain vehicle access alleys. H. Surface Mounted Utilities and Rooftop Equipment. Impacts related to rooftop equipment and surface mounted utilities are currently unknown. Therefore, conditions of approval require submission of plans subject to staff approval detailing how the equipment and utilities are to be shielded from view. I. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate school facilities and walking conditions to and from school. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools: Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Elementary and High School students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The stop is located at NE 12th St and Harrington Ave NE which is also the location of McKnight Middle School. Middle School students would walk to school. The proposed project includes the installation of new public streets within the development and frontage improvements along the site’s periphery. All street improvements would include sidewalks. Students would have a walking route to the bus stop with existing sidewalk improvements or installed as part of the development. Students would connect to the abutting NE 12th St from Jefferson Ave NE or NE 11th St/Harrington Place NE and walk west to Harrington Ave NE or they would walk south from Jefferson Ave NE connecting to NE 10th St continue west to Harrington Ave NE and walk north to NE 12th St. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 9 9 A school impact fee would be required for the future dwellings. The current Renton School District Impact Fee is $4,989.00 per multifamily dwelling unit. The fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable to this project and is payable at the time of building permit issuance. J. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and appropriate transit and bicycle facilities. As noted in the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3), the abutting bus stop to the site on NE Sunset Blvd is likely to become a future RapidRide station. As conditioned in the initial master plan, the Applicant is required to coordinate with King County Metro to provide RapidRide infrastructure to the stop and to provide a temporary zone for transit riders while the site is under construction. As to bicycle parking, Block A contains 248 dwellings and 12,605 square feet of retail/eating and drinking establishments requiring 40 parking spaces and therefore the Applicant would be required to provide 128 bicycle parking spaces. Block B contains 307 dwelling units, 13,000 square feet of retail/eating and drinking establishments requiring 40 spaces, daycare center requiring 10 spaces, and therefore the Applicant would be required to provide 169 bicycle parking spaces. The Applicant’s development summary (Exhibit 16) identifies Block A would provide 124 spaces and Block B would provide 154 spaces, both insufficient to meet their respective code requirements. Floor plans for Blocks A and B (Exhibits 19 and 20) indicate bicycle parking on level one (1) of Block B but there is no delineated bicycle parking space in Block A. Through correspondence with the Applicant’s architect, interior programming of Block A remains underway during the site plan review and it is anticipated space would be provided on the ground floor of Block A and/or distributed throughout the floors of the building. To ensure adequate bicycle parking space is provided in Blocks A and B, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit bicycle parking plans for Block A and Block B with their respective building permit applications. The plans shall identify the correct number of required bicycle parking spaces and provide graphic and narrative details of how the parking meets the storage, security, and space standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11.a and b. The bicycle parking plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. K. Loading and Storage Areas. Loading and storage areas are adequately shielded from view. Exterior storage and refuse/recycling areas are not proposed as these areas would be located within the mixed-use buildings on Blocks A and B. Access to the service area for Block A along Kirkland Ave NE is screened with landscaping. Block B service area and daycare pick/drop-off is obscured from view by the abutting Shell fuel station and perimeter landscaping along the NE 10th St frontage. L. Parking. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking, as the amount and design of parking is consistent with City regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 10 10 For the Master Site Plan level of review the Applicant has generally provided the number of required parking spaces for the dwelling units and has accounted for parking for future commercial uses. As noted at p. 15 of the staff report, the precise number of parking spaces is currently unknown because the type of commercial space that will be leased is unknown. However, the conditions of approval require submission of a transportation demand management plan to iron out the remaining details to ensure that parking meets City parking standards by the time of occupancy. M. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping as the Applicant has proposed a general conceptual landscaping plan that staff finds is sufficient to be implemented to City standards during administrative site plan review. The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 34) generally provides a 10-foot-wide landscape strip along public street frontages as required by City standards. A reduced street frontage landscaping approximately six (6) feet in width is shown on Block B between the two (2) story townhomes and the Sunset Lane NE sidewalk to accommodate private patio space. The landscaping regulations do not provide such an allowance and a condition requires the Applicant to revise this area in the final landscaping plan and provide the 10-foot width. No street frontage landscaping would be required along NE Sunset Blvd as the setbacks are reduced and the buildings on Blocks A and B would be constructed near the property line. Additionally, street frontage landscaping would not be required on NE 11th St abutting the ground floor commercial spaces and at the corners of NE 11th St and Sunset Lane NE as these areas are required walkways and required pedestrian oriented open space. Compliance review of tree, shrub, and ground cover species, quantity, size, and irrigation will occur with the civil construction permit application’s final detailed landscaping plan. Street improvements within the project and along it’s frontage will require an eight (8) foot wide planter strip between the curb and sidewalk with street trees and groundcover. Planter strips would be located on each side of Sunset Lane NE and NE 11th St and along the project’s frontage of Harrington Pl NE., NE 12th St., Kirkland Ave NE, and NE Sunset Blvd. The planter strip along NE Sunset Blvd is separated from the sidewalk to accommodate on street parking for ground floor commercial on Blocks A and B as approved in the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3). Planter strips have been installed on NE 10th St as part of the City’s capital improvement to the abutting area. The conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 17) provide a general location and width of the planter strips with areas of proposed street trees and groundcover. Several proposed street tree species are not on the City Approved Street Tree List. Additionally, there appears to be gaps in the planter strip with perpendicular paved areas along Sunset Lane NE, NE 11th St., and Harrington Pl NE. These gaps will likely result in difficulty with appropriate tree spacing and an overall reduction in street tree planting as competition for adequate space already exists with utilities and street lighting. A condition of approval requires these gaps to be removed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 11 11 N. Stormwater. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. A Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers, dated December 2020, was submitted with the land use application. Based on the City of Renton’s flow control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area matching Existing Site Conditions and is within the East Lake Washington Drainage Basin. The development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine core requirements and the six special requirements have been discussed in the Technical Information Report. 4. The development is required to provide enhanced water quality treatment prior to discharge. Project water quality treatment will consist of conveyance to a series of bioretention facilities prior to connection to the proposed new public conveyance system which will connect to the existing public conveyance system. Additional analysis of the preliminary TIR can be found in the Advisory Notes Exhibit 47). A final TIR would be required with the civil construction permit application. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and preliminary plats of 10 lots or more as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies street modifications as Type I permits. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan, preliminary plat and street modification applications are subject to Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), type III review is subject to hearing and final decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Center Village (CV) and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). 3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Street Modifications Findings and Conclusions. The staff report doesn’t appear to identify what triggered the major examiner as opposed to minor administrative review of the master plan application and/or plat amendment. RMC 4-9-200H identifies what changes to a master plan trigger examiner as opposed to administrative review as does RMC 4-7-080M for plat amendments. The most objective trigger is in RMC 4-9-200H2a, which provides that any increase in scale that exceeds ten percent triggers major examiner review for master plans. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the parking for the overall master plan will be increased from 906 to 1,024 parking spaces, which is more than a ten percent increase in scale. The plat review could simply be considered as consolidated with the major master plan review if the plat revisions by themselves do not qualify as major. In this regard, the applications have been properly presented as master site plan review, site plan review, preliminary plat review and street modification. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 12 12 RMC 4-9-200(B) authorizes master plan review as an option for all zones except the CA zone. The Applicant has opted for master plan review and as noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, site plan review is also requested for Phases 1 and 2 of the proposal. Both master plan review and site plan review are governed by the criteria of RMC 4-9-200(E), with the caveat that the criteria for master plan review are to be evaluated “for general compliance with the criteria to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.” Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for subdivision review. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through associated conclusions of law. The street modification request identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250(D). The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 27 of the staff report are adopted to conclude that the proposal meets the criteria for the requested street modification. Master Plan and Site Plan RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail: a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria. b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3- 2012) 4. The criterion is met. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. The level of detail for Blocks A and B (Phases 1 and 2) are appropriate to the more detailed level of site plan review. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 13 13 ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in Finding No. 22 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in Finding No. 23 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 24 of the staff report. No development agreement applies to the project, although the Applicant and City have agreed to a Stand Still Agreement,” Ex. 4 and 49, which outline an agreed upon interpretation of City development standards between Applicant and City, including vesting. The terms of that Agreement have not been contested and it has not been found necessary to deviate from the agreed upon terms for purposes of meeting applicable review criteria. The City’s Environmental Review Committee determined the modification to the Solera Master Plan and preliminary plat, Site Plan Review of Blocks A and B, and street modification qualify as a Planned Action and the application meets the criteria outlined in the Planned Action Ordinance Ordinance #5813). The initial master plan (Exhibit 3) identified EIS mitigation measures in Attachment B of the Planned Action that could be implemented for the proposal. The Applicant has submitted a written narrative of applicable measures (Exhibit 41) and how they are incorporated into the site plan application. Mitigation measures that did not contain a response and are typical construction best practices such as erosion control, fill material sourcing, construction emission control, and environmental health would be reviewed with the civil construction permit application and ongoing with City inspectors during construction. A comment was received on January 16, 2021 from the Duwamish Tribe recommending archeological review to be performed for the project (Exhibit 10). The Planned Action EIS includes the “Plan and Procedures for Dealing with the Unanticipated Discovery” that provides instruction and sequence of events that is to occur should discovery be made. Additionally, the EIS contained a Cultural Resources Survey Report that included the Sunset Court Apartments site directly abutting the Solera site to the west. Five (5) shovel test pits were excavated and a pedestrian survey of the area revealed no surface evidence of archeological deposits. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 14 14 iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(C), circulation by FOF 6(D) and (E), loading and storage areas by FOF 6(K), views by FOF 5(E), landscaping by FOF No. 5(C) and lighting by FOF 5(D). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(F). Extensive landscaping is required of the project as described in FOF No. 6(M) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade and privacy and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. The project provides for adequate vegetative retention by complying with the City’s tree retention standards as addressed in FOF No. 5(B). Beyond tree retention, there are no other natural features in need of protection at the project site, since there are no critical areas located at the project site as determined in FOF No. 5(A). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 15 15 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 8. The criterion is met. Access points are limited to side streets and alleys within the development. A frontage road along NE Sunset Blvd separated by a planter strip would provide separation and opportunity to park vehicles along the principal arterial. Internal circulation is safe and efficient for the reasons outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Loading and delivery would be designed to comply with City standards, including the standard quoted above, during administrative site plan review as outlined in FOF No. 6(K). Transit and bicycle facilities are provided and comply with standards as identified in FOF No. 6(J). Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as determined in FOF No. 6(D) in conjunction with the landscaping identified in FOF No. 6(M). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in FOF 6(C). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 10. The criterion is met. The proposal does not block any view corridors to Mr. Rainier or shorelines as determined in FOF No. 5(E). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 16 16 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), there are no natural systems at the project site – the project site has no critical areas and almost the entire site is currently paved. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 13. As conditioned, the proposal will follow a detailed sequencing plan for phased construction as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and required by the criterion quoted above. Subdivision RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability: 1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code. 2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel. 3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat. 4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water supplies and sanitary wastes. 14. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 23 of the staff report is adopted by reference as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will access a public road as depicted in the master plan map, Ex. 2. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, the project is adequately designed to prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems as it is not located in a floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities. RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 17 17 15. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Finding 22 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway. 16. The internal roads connect to existing public roads as required by the criterion quoted above and shown in the master plan, Ex. 2, for the project. RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the City. 17. City staff have reviewed the proposal for consistency with City road plans and found the proposed roads to be consistent. RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail, provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail purposes. 18. There are no officially designated trails in the vicinity of the project. RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance with the following provisions: 1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions. a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider such subdivision. b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3- 050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be approved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 18 18 3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. 4. Streams: a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water, and wetland areas. b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area, and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed. c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going under streets. d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris and pollutants. 19. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute to flooding and there are no critical areas on-site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed. Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. No lots primarily composed of steep slopes will be created by the subdivision since there are no steep slopes at the project site. RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi - family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution. 20. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building permit issuance. Also, as elaborated upon in FOF No. 6(C), the Applicant is proposing several open space and recreational amenities that meets City open space standards. RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as defined and designated by the Department. 21. The criterion is met. The modified preliminary plat maintains the existing grid and connections from the initial master plan decision (Exhibit 3). Condition #22 requiring the Applicant to obtain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 19 19 preliminary approval for the street vacation remains applicable and in effect with the modified preliminary plat. RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City. 22. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum. 23. The criterion is met. The only major arterial fronting the project is NE Sunset Blvd, which is classified as a principal arterial. NE 12t St., the only other frontage arterial, is classified as a collector arterial. The project avoids a direct connection to NE Sunset Blvd by the proposed frontage road. RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety measures. 24. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and acceptable street alignment. RMC 4-7-150(E): 1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section. 2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60. 3. Exceptions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 20 20 a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site: i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or ii. Substantial improvements are existing. 4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within subdivisions to allow future connectivity. 5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible… 6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations. 7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. 25. The criterion is met. The proposed subdivision is not a typical single-family residential preliminary plat that would contain a rectangular grid with two-tiered lots, however the Solera Master Plan does follow the intent and share traits of a two-tiered subdivision. The proposed subdivision would result in four (4) blocks A, B, C, and D created by the north/south Sunset Lane NE and east/west NE 11th St street improvements constructed by the Applicant. Blocks C and D would be tiered by alleys A through G RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat, including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 21 21 sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee. 26. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision. RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be required in certain instances to facilitate future development. 27. Not applicable. All adjoining properties appear to be fully platted. RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. 28. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 2, the side lines are generally in conformance with the requirement quoted above. RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. 29. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street. RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density requirement as measured within the plat as a whole. 30. As previously determined, the proposal complies with the zoning code, which includes lot area and width and density. RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul -de-sac (radial lots), which shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35'). 31. As shown in the plat map, Ex. 2, the requirement is satisfied. RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 22 22 32. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees, watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby adding attractiveness and value to the property. 33. There are no significant on-site natural features. RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 34. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat. 35. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The City’s stormwater standards, which are addressed in the Applicant’s technical information report and will be further implemented during administrative site plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted above. RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire Department requirements. 36. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval. RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 23 23 approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department. 37. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 38. As conditioned. RMC 4-7-210: A. MONUMENTS: Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. B. SURVEY: All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. C. STREET SIGNS: The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 24 24 39. As conditioned. DECISION For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law above, as conditioned below all applicable review criteria for the Applicant’s master plan, site plan, preliminary plat and street modification are met by the proposal. All permit applications are approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval from the LUA18-000490 Solera Master Plan decision issued December 11, 2018 and reconsideration issued January 30, 2019 with the exception of the following conditions that are either removed due to their inapplicability based on the modified master site plan or as modified: a. The following conditions are no longer applicable and removed from the master plan decision: Conditions 3,4,7, 20, 21, and 25. b. The Applicant shall raise the ground floor of the units in the three (3) townhome unit cluster buildings in Block D a minimum of three (3) feet above the grade of the NE 11th St and Harrington Pl NE sidewalk and provide an elevated stoop entrance for each unit. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide articulation, materials, and glazing, beyond what is required by the R-10 and R-14 Residential Design and Open Space Standards, along the side elevations of the townhomes facing the street that is similar to a front elevation. These ground level features and additional exterior side wall articulation shall be shown on the elevation plans submitted with the Administrative Site Plan Review application for Block D to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager (Modified Condition #5). c. The Applicant shall submit open space plans for Block C and Block D that clearly indicates the amount of common open space meeting the standards of RMC 4-2- 115E.2 or where applicable RMC 4-1-240B.3, if approved. Any approved fee-in- lieu shall be paid prior to issuance of the first building permit on the respective block. The open space plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the Block C and Block D site plan issuance. (Modified Condition #11). d. The Applicant shall complete the project phases in the sequence of the updated phasing plan as provided in Exhibit 15. If market rate and affordable units are not distributed as identified in the Standstill Agreement, but are instead one (1) standalone market rate block and one (1) standalone affordable block, then the standalone market rate block shall be Phase 1. Construction of Phase 2 may proceed concurrently with Phase 1. Phase 3 townhome construction shall not begin until the building permits for Phase 1 have been paid for by the Applicant and issued by the City. One block of Phase 3 townhome construction (north or south of NE 11th St) may begin following building permit issuance of Phase 1. The second block of Phase 3 townhomes may begin following building permit issuance for the second mixed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 25 25 use building in Phase 2. Certificates of occupancy for the townhomes will not be issued until the podium and framing for Phase 1 has passed inspection. (Modified Condition #18) e. The Applicant shall submit a street modification request with the Site Plan Review applications for Block C and Block D to modify the Unit Lot Drive standards and provide the private alley sections as shown on the townhome unit lot subdivision. The street modification decision shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager with the Site Plan decision(s). (Modified Condition #19) 2. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plans with the building permit applications for Block A and Block B that provide at least one ground floor commercial space in each of Block A and B with grease traps and ventilation shafts for a commercial kitchen hood/exhaust; central plumbing line; and ADA compliant bathrooms shall be provided for all commercial ground floor space which may be provided through the use of common facilities. The revised floor plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 3. The Applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan per the submittal requirements set forth in RMC 4-8-120D.12 and that meets the applicable landscaping standards set forth in RMC 4-4-070 with the civil construction permit application. The detailed landscaping plan shall incorporate street frontage landscaping 10-feet in width along Jefferson Lane NE abutting the two-story townhomes on Block B where it is shown deficient on the conceptual landscaping plan (Exhibit 17). The detailed landscaping plan shall provide a full and continuous planter strip void of the perpendicular paved sections, except where approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, to aid in consistent street tree spacing and to achieve maximum planting capacity. Street tree spacing and planting capacity shall take preference over stormwater bioretention facilities. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Current Planning Project Manager with selection of street tree species from the City’s Approved Street Tree List. The detailed landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 4. The Applicant shall provide a tree replacement exhibit as a component of the detailed landscape plan to be submitted with the civil construction permit application. The exhibit shall provide a table that includes the species, quantity, caliper inch of each replacement tree and corresponding plan of where those trees will be planted on the site. The tree replacement exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand Management Plan with the civil construction permit application. The plan’s primary purpose shall be to ensure residents of Solera are provided with off-street parking spaces for their registered vehicles with a secondary purpose of providing incentives for non-single occupancy vehicle trips. The plan shall guarantee a minimum of one (1) parking space for each unit in Blocks A and B via an assigned and numbered space. Remaining spaces may be allocated to residents that have an additional vehicle and for guest parking. The Applicant shall ensure that residents have an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 26 26 assigned parking space for every vehicle intended to be kept onsite via specific language in the resident rental agreement. The rental agreement shall include language that residents not park any of their registered vehicles on the public street within ¼ mile of the site and indicate penalties for not utilizing the Solera parking garage. The plan shall provide trip reducing measures such as subsidized transit fares, vanpool/carpooling services, and commuter center. The plan shall also include a joint use parking arrangement that provides resident and guest parking in onsite commercial spaces during their respective business off-peak hours. The plan and specific language of the rental agreement as it relates to the intent for all resident parking provided within their respective assigned spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 6. The Applicant shall submit bicycle parking plans for Block A and Block B with their respective building permit applications. The plans shall identify the correct number of required bicycle parking spaces and provide graphic and narrative details of how the parking meet the storage, security, and space standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11.a and b. The bicycle parking plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 7. The Applicant shall submit a revised fencing plan with the civil construction permit application that provides material details, height, and location of fencing on the master site plan. The fencing shall be consistent, high-quality, and commensurate to the materials that are used throughout the development. The fencing material shall be wood, ornamental, or comparable material as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Chain link fencing shall not be accepted. The revised fencing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior permit issuance. 8. The Applicant shall submit material and exterior finish details for the retaining wall and four (4) foot guard rails with the civil construction permit application. Materials and exterior finishes of the walls shall meet the retaining wall standards and provide an anti -graffiti coating. Guard rails on top of the retaining wall shall provide high visibility to and from the public sidewalk with materials and aesthetic treatments that are consistent with the gateway entry to the development. The retaining wall and guard rail details shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 9. The Applicant shall submit revised south elevations for Block B for the façade not obscured by the Shell fuel facility with the building permit application. The elevations shall provide entry and facade features for the daycare and office entry that are identifiable and that are similar in architectural character as other entrances and ground level facades on Blocks A and B. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 10. The Applicant shall widen the pedestrian pathway from the NE 10th sidewalk to the daycare entrance to a minimum of five (5) feet in width on plans submitted with the civil construction permit application. The revised width shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 11. The Applicant shall submit detail sheets and quantities of all street and open space furniture including but not limited to planters, benches, group seating, refuse and recycling, bike 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 27 27 racks, pergolas, and outdoor recreation equipment. The detail sheets and quantities shall be integrated in the detailed landscape plan submitted with the civil construction permit to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 12. The Applicant shall submit graphic verification that weather protection for Blocks A and B extend a at least 4.5 feet from the buildings along 75-percent of the facades facing the street and/or a narrative of how the proposed weather protection meets the intent and guidelines of the Pedestrian Environment section of the Urban Design Regulations with the building permit application. The verification and narrative shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 13. The Applicant shall submit a pedestrian oriented space exhibit as a component of the detailed landscaping plan submitted with the civil construction permit. The exhibit shall provide paving details for plazas and other onsite pedestrian areas that are composed of scored concrete, pavers, stone, or comparable material approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The exhibit shall also provide photometric lighting calculations for pedestrian oriented spaces that provide at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground or meet the intent and guidelines of the Recreation and Open Space section of the Urban Design Regulations. A written narrative shall accompany the exhibit identifying how the delineated pedestrian-oriented spaces noted on the plan meet the meet the RMC defined criteria. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 14. The Applicant shall submit revised elevation plans with the building permit applications that replaces the blank walls located on the NE 11th St and Kirkland Ave NE frontage along Block A and the NE 11th St frontage for Block B with glazing or other architectural detailing or provide justification of a required or unavoidable blank wall with treatment as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 15. The Applicant shall submit a revised lighting plan with the building permit application for Block A and Block B that includes detail sheets of all light fixtures and their supports. Fixtures and supports shall be pedestrian scaled and consistent with the design of the site and provide adequate foot-candle illumination in pedestrian areas as shown on a revised photometric calculation. The lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 16. The Applicant shall submit a rooftop equipment exhibit with the elevation plans associated with Block A and Block B building permit applications. The exhibit shall provide cross section details and identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to architecture of the buildings. The exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 17. The Applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details with the civil construction permit application associated with Blocks A and B. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes are located out of public ROW view, active common open spaces, and they shall not displace required landscaping areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening measures consistent with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 28 28 the overall design of the development. The surface mounted utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 18. The Applicant shall submit revised site and floor plans with the building permit applications for Block A and Block B that detail marked loading and delivery areas that do not conflict with parking and pedestrian areas for each block. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 19. The Applicant shall submit a revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the civil construction permit application that provides analysis of the northbound and southbound I- 405/Sunset Blvd ramp terminal intersections. The revised TIA shall also provide a correction to the total number of units in Blocks A and B and correction to the total square footage of retail space. The revised TIA shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. 20. The Applicant shall coordinate with City staff regarding the circulation pattern of the NE Sunset Blvd frontage road abutting the angled parking during review of the civil construction permit. The final circulation plan shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and Development Review Engineer prior to permit issuance. 21. Any changes to the approved project require a major modification or a minor modification. The following determines whether a proposed change will be reviewed as a major modification or a minor modification: a. Proposed project changes will be reviewed as a major modification (in other words, as a new application) unless they meet the scope for a minor modification, below. b. Proposed project changes will be reviewed as a minor modification by administrative determination, if the proposed changes do not: i. Involve more than a ten percent (10%) increase or decrease in any measurable aspect of the approved plan such as, but not limited to, area, scale, building height, density, commercial area, amenities, public or private open space, landscaping, parking spaces, building materials (e.g., glazing) etc.; ii. Have a substantially greater impact on the environment and/or public facilities than the approved plan; iii. Change the boundaries of the originally approved plan; and iv. Substantially alter a key feature of the approved plan. 22. The Applicant shall receive preliminary approval of any necessary street vacation(s) from City Council prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. Final approval of the street vacation(s) shall be completed prior to plat recording. 23. All road names shall be approved by the City. 24. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 29 29 25. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision. 26. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all service connections, as approved by the Public Works Department. Such installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Public Works Department. 27. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or landowner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed. 28. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15'). Decision issued March 14, 2021. Hearing Examiner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MASTER PLAN, SITE PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT and SM CAO VARIANCE - 30 30 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.