HomeMy WebLinkAboutAvana Ridge PUD z
✓ j
� "�
PROCLAMATION
National Night Out 2016-August 2,2016:A prociamation by Mayor Law was read declaring
August 2, 2016 to be "National Night Out 2016" in the City of Renton, and encouraging all
citizens to help "Give Crime & Drugs a Going Away Party" by participating in a 33rd Annual
National Night Out event. Cyndie Parks of the Police Department accepted the proclamation
with thanks.
MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL ADOPT THE
PROCLAMATION AS READ. CARRIED.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
a) July 4th Fireworks Regulation Wrap-Up: Chief Mark Peterson introduced Deputy Chief Erik
Wallgren and Fire Marshall Angela St.John who provided a brief summary regarding the Fire
Authority's proactive steps to implement the Fireworks ban this past luly 4th Holiday.
��
��� �
�� a) Planning& Development Committee Chair Prince presented a report regarding Avana Ridge
{��� Planned Urban Development(LUA-15-000894).The Committee, after reading the
��Y� submissions,considering the record, and hearing testimony and oral arguments from all sides,
found that there was no substantial error in fact or law and recommended that the full
� Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY MCIRVIN, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Chief Administrative Officer 1ay Covington reviewed a written administrative report
summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of
its business plan for 2016 and beyond. Items noted were regarding:
• Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in
occasional street closures.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS �
• Kathleen Booher, Renton, addressed council regarding her concerns about crime and
drug dealing/use in her neighborhood of North Renton. Mayor Law requested that
Police Administration meet with her to discuss this topic further.
• Diane Dobson, Renton, expressed her concerns regarding the City Center Community
Plan. Community and Economic Development Administrator, Chip Vincent, provided
clarification regarding the part of the plan she was referencing.Additionally, she
urged Council to look into the City Advisory Board member representation and to
consider if those members are fully invested and committed to their positions.
• lackson Taylor, Bellevue, Community Projects Manager for Puget Sound Energy(PSE)
informed Council about an energy efficiency program that PSE is bringing to Renton
residents to encourage the use of LED light bulbs within the home so as to improve
efficiency and save money.
August 1, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
. ,
� � APPROV�C� ��
CITY GUUfUCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ��t
COMMITTEE REPORT Q�t2-=f � s����
August 1, 2016
Avana Ridge Planned Urban Development (LUA 15-000894) Appeal
(Referred on July 11, 2016)
The Planning and Development Committee after reading the submissions, considering the record, and
hearing testimony and oral arguments from all sides, finds that there was no substantial error in fact or
law and recommends that the full Council affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
rince, Chair
�--
an Mclrvin, Vice Chair
,
f
c�`�;
Armondo Pavone, Member
cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney
��r+ �
• Howard McOmber, Renton, requested additional help from Council and the
community for more support in the form of volunteers and/or financial gifts to help
REACH accomplish their goals to assist the homelessness crisis.Additionally, he
thanked Council for its support and thanked Dr. Linda Smith for what she has done for
the Center of Hope.
• Ben Johnson, Renton, addressed the abuse of illegal fireworks being used in Renton
and requested that the repeat offenders receive a larger punishment for their crimes.
• Adria Krail, Renton, reiterated the importance of the services provided by the Center
of Hope and the possible negative impact that reducing the services would have on
the community.
• Lainey Sickinger, Renton, Chairperson for the Board of Directors of REACH provided
clarification regarding decisions regarding the restructuring of the REACH
organization due to cost cuts and federal government regulations. She specified that
the Center of Hope will not be closing, and though the days will be shorter, people in
need will still be provided breakfast and lunch.She remarked that REACH hopes to
increase hours again if additional funding is received.
CONSENT A6ENDA •
Items listed on the ConsentAgenda were adopted with one motion,following the listing.At the request
of Counci/member Corman, Consent Agenda items 8.j., S.p., and 8.s. were pulled for separate
consideration.
a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes ofJune 27, 2016. Council Concur.
� �AB-1718 City Clerk reported appeal of the Hearing Examiner's final decision regarding the
�"� Avana Ridge PUD(LUA-15-000894) by Dan Palmer, accompanied by required fee.
Consideration of the appeal by the City Counci/shall be based so/ely upon the record, the
Hearing Examiner's report, the notice of appeal, and additiona!submissions by parties(RMC 4-
8-110.F.6.J. Refer to Planning&Development Committee.
c) AB-1719 City Clerk submitted the quarterly list of fully executed contracts between 4/1/2016
-6/30/2016,and a report of agreements expiring between 7/1/2016- 12/31/2016.
None; Information Only.
d) AB-1721 City Clerk reported the official population of the City of Renton as of 4/1/2016 to be
101,300, ranking eighth in the state by population size, as calculated by the State of
Washington Office of Financial Management. None; Information Only.
e) AB-1722 City Clerk reported the results from the 7/S/2016 bid opening for CAG-16-105 -
Maplewood Creek and Madsen Creek Sediment Basin Cleaning Project 2016; and submitted
the staff recommendation to accept the lowest responsive bid submitted by Sierra Pacific
Construction, LLC., in the amount of$76,000. Council Concur.
g) AB-1704 Community& Economic Development Department recommended reviewing
consultant recommendations regarding potential revisions to the codes, rules, and standards
to incorporate and require Low Impact Development(LID) principle and practices with the
Planning Commission. Following this review,the Planning Commission will present code
revision recommendations to Council.
Refer to Planning Commission and Planning&Development Committee.
luly 11, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
� � AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
AB- 1718
CITY OF
•
------ enton �
. .. . , .
SUBJECT/TITLE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's Final Decision dated 5/24/2016
regarding the Avana Ridge PUD. (File No. LUA-15-000894)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning& Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: City Clerk
STAFF CONTACT: Jason Seth, City Clerk
EXT.: 6502
. • . . •
N/A
� ' • � •
Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Final Decision on the Avana Ridge PUD (File No. lUA-15-000894) was filed on
6/7/2016 by Dan Palmer, accompanied by the required $250.00 fee.
:
A. Response Letters (Supporting & Denying) (Dan Russell & Brent Carson)
B. City Clerk's letter(6/14/2016)
C. Appeal—Dan Palmer(6/7/2016)
D. HEX's Final Decision (5/24/2016)
E. Staff Report (S/10/2016)
F. Exhibit 4—Elevations
G. Exhibit 3—Landscape Plan
H. Exhibit 2—Site Plan
1. ERC Report(4/11/2016)
1. SEPA Determination & Mitigation Measures
� • • � � •
Take action on the Avana Ridge PUD Appeal.
�
�"' �'" AGENDA 1TEM #8. b)
Jason Seth
From: Dan Russell <dre98055@comcast.net> CITY OF RENTON
Sent: Thursday,lune 23, 2016 9:12 AM
To: lason Seth Jl�� `��_; 2��6
Subject: Avana
r�ECEIVED
�;CT Y CLERK'S OFFICE
My concerns cover an already troubling problem. The traffic congestion on 108th at the light on New Benson. Back ups
are due to the traffic on New Benson that fails to let cars on 108th turn left. 1 personally have sat through 4 light
changes from 172nd trying to turn left. The right turn onto 108th from 172nd is many times difficult as traffic blocks the
intersection onto 108th Making a �eft hand turn during high traffic is extremely dangerous already as there is no
visibility because of the mass of cars lined up. Your proposal to change 108th does not not address the intersection at
the light.
The right hand lane coming from Avana onto 108th will merely cause additional risk and congestion for right turn
participants unless there is a right hand turn specific lane.
Can't you create a right hand lane out of Avana onto New Benson along with the change of lanes turning left. Thus one
dedicated lane turning left,one lane turning left or right and one lane turning right only.
I trust you will monitor this situation and measure the already existing problem during peak traffic times prior to making
your decision.
I am sure failure to do this will result in harm to people who will be using this street regularly. I for one do not care to
be responsible for this so I am asking you to do your due diligence. I for one will do all that I can to prepare for the
eventuality of this event.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dan Russell
702 340 6939
10717 se 172nd
Renton, Wa 98055
1
. � `�" �'O�F�h+4 ITE #8, b)
JUN 16 2Q16 3� ��
RECEIVEQ
1 CITY CLERK'S OFFIGE
2
V �� �'
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
RE: AVANA RIDGE PUD
9 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN
Preliminary Planned Urban PALMER'S APPEAL OF THE
10 Development HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL
DECISION ON THE AVANA
11 LUA-15-000894 RIDGE PUD
12
13
14 Pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-110(F)(3), the Applicant for the
15 Avana Ridge PUD, Avana Ridge LLC (the"Applicant"), by and through its legal counsel,
16 Brent Carson of Van Ness Feldman, LLP, files this response to the appeal filed by Dan
17 Palmer ("Mr. Palmer") on June 7, 2016 (the "Appeal") challenging the Hearing
18 Examiner's ("Hearing Examiner" or "Examiner") Final Decision' approving the Avana
19 Ridge Preliminary Planned Urban Development (the "Project"). For the reasons stated
20 below, the Appeal should be summarily dismissed, or if it is considered on its merits, the
21 Appeal should be denied and the Final Decision should be affirmed.
22
23
24
25 ' Hearing Examiner's Final Decision, LUA 15-000894, PP, PPUD ("Final Decision").
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF � Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman«P
AVANA RIDGE PUD- 1
69230-� 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
� ORIGINAL (206)I623-g392104
� �" ""�'` AGENDA 1TE #8, b)
i
I. The Appeal should be Dismissed Summarilv because it Fails to Meet the
2 Standards for Filing An Appeal.
3 The Appeal filed by Mr. Palmer fails to meet the standards established by the City
4 Council for filing a land use appeal under RMC Section 4-8-110. RMC 4-8-110(C)(3)
5 states:
6 3. Required Form for and Content of Appeals Any appeal shall be filed
� in writing. The written notice ofappeal shallfully, clearlv and thorouQhlv
�ecifv the substantial error(s) in fact or law which exist in the record of
g the proceedings from which the appellant seeks relief(emphasis added).
9 This code provision is not a suggestion. It is a procedural requirement of the City Code.
10 As noted in the introductory paragraph of this code section:
11 A. SCOPE AND PURPOSE:
12 This Section provides the basic procedures for processing all tvpes o land
13 use and development-related appeals. �ecific requirements are based
upon the type/level of appeal and the appeal authority. Procedures for the
14 following types of appeals are included in this Section:
15 �C 4-8-110(A).
16 Mr. Palmer has failed to comply with this fundamental procedural requirement.
l� His Appeal alleges not one specific error. Mr. Palmer's Appeal cites to no facts in the
1 g record to support a claim that the Final Decision contains substantial errors. He presents
19 no claims of legal errors by the Hearing Examiner. His Appeal simply agrees that the
20 Project has a"good design," then expresses various"concerns" about the Project. Not one
21 of these "concerns" points to any factual or legal errors in the Final Decision, let alone
22 "fully, clearly and thoroughly specify the substantial error(s)in fact or law" as required by
23 City Code.
24 There was ample opportunity in both the public comment period for SEPA review
25 and in the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for members of the public,
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF ' Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-2 Feldman LLP
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98t04
(206) 623-9372
. �'` °�' AGENDA ITE #8. b)
1 including Mr. Palmer, to raise concerns about the Project. The record for stating concerns
2 has closed. An appeal to the City Council is for the purpose of a party of record to allege,
3 then prove, that the Hearing Examiner made substantial errors in fact or law that would
4 require the City Council to reverse or modify the Final Decision.
5 Here, the Appeal has failed to do anything more than restate concems. Without
6 meeting the fundamental requirement for a land use appeal to allege specific enors, there
7 is no basis for the City Council to assess whether to grant or deny the Appeal on its merits.
8 Based on Mr. Palmer's failure to allege any substantive errors in fact or law in the
9 Final Decision,the City Council should summarily dismiss the Appeal.
10 II. Even if the Citv Council Chooses to Consider the Merits of the Aapeal, the
Appeal should nonetheless be Denied and the Council should Affirm the Hearins
11 Examiner's Final Decision.
12 If the City Council does not summarily dismiss the Appeal for failing to identify
13 any substantive enors, we ask the City Council to deny the Appeal on its merits. The
14 record before the Hearing Examiner demonstrates that the Final Decision is fully
15 supported by substantial evidence and is consistent with applicable law. None of the
16 "concerns" expressed by Mr. Palmer rise to a reversible error.
17 Each of the paragraphs below address the individual "concerns" expressed by
18 Mr. Palmer in his Appeal and demonstrates why Mr. Palmer has failed to meet his burden
19 to prove substantial errors in fact or law.Z
20 Concern 1: Increase in traffic to neighborhoods,specifically north of the site
21 The Appeal states a concern that the Project will increase traffic to neighborhoods
22 to the north. However,the Appeal fails to allege any error in this regard.
23
24
25 Z The burden of proof rests with the appellant. RMC 4-8-11(F)(5).
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF � Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman��
AVANA RIDGE PUD-3
69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� �' ''� AGENDA 1TE #8. b)
1 The record establishes that the Project will add 5 PM peak-hour trips and 4 AM
2 peak-hour trips through the single-family neighborhood to the north. Traffic Impact
3 Analysis (TIA) Prepared by TraffEx, February 2, 2016 (Exhibit I S). The Hearing
4 Examiner found that this level of traffic was minimal, that the TIA adequately addressed
5 impacts from this traffic and that the mitigation imposed through the SEPA condition to
6 address this increased traffic was sufficient. The Final Decision states:
7 A major concern of the neighbors was tra�c impacts to 106 Ave SE, 104 Ave
SE and 105 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, several neighbors testified that
$ these roads are isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic
... . Although a review of the surrounding road network shows that persons
9 may very well choose to drive through 105/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR
SIS intersection as well as other traffic problems in the area, the applicant's
10 traffic analysis reveals that the project will only add five PM peak hour trips
and jour AM peak hour trips into the IOS/104/106 roads. The applicant's
11 traffzc analysis was verified by peer review. Given the expert traffic analysis
prepared by the applicant and the independent expert verification conducted
12 under the peer review, the applicant's tra�c analysis is taken as a verity
given the absence of any expert testimony to the contrary. With only a
13 mazimum of five additional trips per hour generated by the proposal, there is
no basis to require more than the speed radar signs required by the SEPA
14 mitigation measures.
IS Final Decision,pp. 9-10.
16 The Appeal cites to no error in these findings by the Hearing Examiner.
17 Moreover, as noted by the Hearing Examiner, no expert testimony was presented at the
1 S hearing to contradict the expert traffic report prepared for the Applicant by TraffEx. The
19 Final Decision addresses this concern and should be affirmed.
20
Concern 2: Existing congestion on Benson Road, including a blind curve
21 condition, and Adequacy of 106th and 104th for through traffic
22 The City of Renton ("City") received public comments and the Hearing Examiner
23 heard testimony regarding existing southbound queuing at the intersection of Benson
24 Road South and SR 515. The Hearing Examiner found that the TIA adequately analyzed
25 the potential impacts at the Benson Road S/515 intersection. Final Decision, p. 10. This
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF � Wan Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE
AVANA RIDGE PUD-4 Feldman ��P
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69Z30-� Seattle, wA 98104
(206) 623-9372
, '"�'` `�` AGENDA ITE #8, b)
1 was also addressed by the Examiner in Condition 27, which requires the rechannelization
2 of the left- and right-turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 515, to one
3 left-turn lane and one combined left-turn/right-turn lane, as well as signal improvements
4 to accommodate the rechannelization. The Examiner found that with these improvements
5 in place,the queue lengths would be reduced to below pre-development conditions.
6 As noted above, regarding Concern 1, the Hearing Examiner found that traffic
7 from the Project filtering north along 105/104/106�'Avenues was adequately addressed in
8 the TIA and would be minimal. The TIA was independently peer reviewed by a traffic
9 consultant selected by the City, who concurred with the TIA's analyses. Memorandum
10 from Michael Read, PE, Principal, TENW, March 21, 2016. Exhibit 17. The Appeal cites
11 to no testimony rebutting these findings or establishing errors with the Final Decision on
12 this point.
13 The impacts from the Project, with the mitigation measures in place, will either be
14 better than pre-Project conditions (reduced queues) or de minimis (less than ten (10) total
15 trips in the peak travel hours)). This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final
16 Decision on this issue should be affirmed.
17 Concern 3: Entry onto Benson Road from the Project entrance
18 Mr. Palmer is concerned that the Benson Road entry to the Project is dangerous
19 but cites to no evidence in the record to support this concern or to establish any substantial
20 error by the Hearing Examiner on this point.
21 The Project site entrance as analyzed in the TIA aligns with 108`h Avenue SE and
22 is supported by adequate sight distance. Exhibit 15, p. 4. As noted above, the TIA was
23 peer-reviewed and no expert testimony was introduced in the record to refute this
24 conclusion. The Hearing Examiner properly concluded that sight distance requirements
25 are met at both site entrance driveways. Final Decision, p. 9. No finding of a threat to
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF ' Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE ��dman«P
AVANA RIDGE PUD-5
69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� '�'`' � AGENDA ITE #8. b)
1 public safety or traffic safety was found in the SEPA determination or in the Hearing
2 Examiner's record.
3 This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should
4 be affirmed.
5 Concern 4: Radar signage and speed bumps are not adequate mitigation
6 Mr. Palmer is concerned that the SEPA condition requiring radar signage and
7 speed bumps to slow traffic will not affect congestion in the neighborhood north of the
8 Project site. However, as noted above, there is no basis in the record to establish that the
9 Project will create�congestion on these streets.
10 Tl�e record demonstrates that there is very little existing traffic on these residential
11 streets and that the Project will add only 15 additional PM peak-hour trips and 14
12 additional AM peak-hour trips north on 108�'Ave SE and only 5 PM peak-hour and 4 AM
13 peak-hour trips along SE 172"d west of the site. Exhibit I 5, Figs. 3 and 4. Mr. Palmer has
14 pointed to no testimony to contradict the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to
15 congestion and the adequacy of the SEPA condition to help slow traffic along this
16 residential street.
17 'This Appeal issue should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should
18 be affirmed.
l9 Concern 5: The need for an on-site traffic study
20 Mr. Palmer states as a concern that an onsite traffic study is required. However, as
21 noted repeatedly in the Final Decision, the Applicant hired a traffic expert to prepare a
22 detailed Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) which was submitted into the record.
23 Exhibit 15. This TIA was peer reviewed by TENW, a third-party traffic engineer hired by
24 the City, who agreed with the conclusions reached by TraffEx. Exhibit 17. Mr. Palmer
25 has failed to show any enor on this point.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF �Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman«P
AVANA RIDGE PUD-6
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
(208) 623-9372
. '""'" `�" A GENDA I TE #8. b)
1 Concern 6: Air pollution
2 Mr. Palmer alleges that air impacts could occur as a result of the Project but fails
3 to show any substantial enor in the Final Decision on this issue.
4 Potential environmental impacts were fully disclosed to the City during the SEPA
5 review process. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) considered those impacts
6 and issued a Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated (DNSM) on April 11, 2016.
7 Exhibit 20. No significant adverse impacts to air quality or any other element of the
8 environment were identified. No party filed an appeal of the SEPA determination. By
9 failing to appeal the DNSM, the conclusions reached by the ERC are final and cannot be
10 challenged in this Appeal.
11 Moreover, concerns regarding air pollution are procedurally beyond the scope of
12 the PUD. The criteria for approval of a Planned Urban Development do not include
13 consideration of potential air pollution from traffic.
14 Nonetheless, the Hearing Examiner did consider concerns expressed about air
15 pollution from traffic and concluded that the Project would not cause air pollution. The
16 Final Decision notes that "one neighbor testified that he was concerned that pollution
17 caused by increased project traffic would exacerbate the respiratory problems of some
18 neighbors living close to the project site." Final Decision, p. 12. The Final Decision also
19 confirms that this neighbor testified that there was currently no vehicle pollution in this
20 neighborhood. Final Decision, p 4. No expert testimony was ever introduced regarding
21 air pollution impacts from the Project. Based on this record, the Hearing Examiner
22 correctly found that "[w]ithout any scientific evidence to substantiate this assertion
23 [concerning air pollution from traffic), there is insufficient evidence to reasonably
24 conclude that the relatively modest traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate
25 respiratory problems." Final Decision,p. 12.
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF ' Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman«P
AVANA RIDGE PUD-7
69230-7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� �'` ""�' AGENDA 1TE #8, b)
1 This concern should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should be
2 affirmed.
3 Concern 7 Compatibility of the architecture
4 Mr. Palmer alleges that the north side of the Project is architecturally incompatible
5 with the neighborhood. However, Mr. Palmer has pointed to no substantial errors in the
6 Hearing Examiner's findings on this issue.
7 The Hearing Examiner carefully considered the documents presented by the
8 Applicant's expert architect and by the City's planning staff that reviewed the Project's
9 design (Exhibit 19} and found that it complied with all applicable design standards. Final
10 Decision, p. 12. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner found that the "(t)he project is
11 compatible with surrounding development." Id. The Examiner also describes the
12 measures that the Applicant took to ensure that the Project complies with the Design
13 District B standards that also apply to the Project site. Id. The Examiner found that in the
14 public comment and testimony, "no one has suggested that staffls finding of compliance
15 with these standards was in error."
16 Once again, Mr. Palmer has cited to no testimony rebutting the Examiner's
17 findings or alleging errors in compliance with any specific design review criteria. This
18 concem should be rejected and the Final Decision on this point should be affirmed.
19 III. Conclusion.
20 'The City Code requires that every land use appeal must state, with specificity,
21 errors in fact or law in the decision being challenged. The Appeal states concerns but fails
22 to allege any errors. Based on the Appellant's failure to meet this procedural requirement,
23 the Appeal should be summarily dismissed.
24 Even if the Appeal is considered on its merits, it should be denied because
25 Mr. Palmer has failed to meet his burden to prove substantial errors in fact or law in the
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF ' Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman��
AVANA RIDGE PUD-8
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230-7 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
. �'`° '�'' AGENDA ITE #8. b)
1 Hearing Examiner's Final Decision. Council's consideration of this Appeal must be based
2 solely on the record, the Hearing Examiner's Report, the notice of appeal and arguments
3 based on the record. There was ample opportunity provided in both the public comment
4 period for SEPA review and during the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner for
5 members of the public to build a record in support of their positions. Based upon the
6 record, the Hearing Examiner reached appropriate findings and conclusions in approving
7 this Project. Mr. Palmer has failed to show, for any of his concerns, that the Hearing
8 Examiner erred. For this reason,the Appeal should be denied.
9
10 Dated this 16th day of June,2016.
11
12
VAN NESS FELDMAN
13
14
15 rent Carson, WSBA#16240
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
16 Seattle, WA 98104
TeL• (206)623-9372
1� Fax: (206)623-4986
E-mail: brc(�a,vnf.com
1 g Attorney for Avana Ridge LLC
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO DAN PALMER'S APPEAL OF � Van Ness
THE HEARING EXAMINER'S FINAL DECISION ON THE Feldman«v
AVANA RIDGE PUD-9
69230.7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� �' "� AGENDA ITE #8, b)
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I,Jennifer Hicok,declare as follows:
3 That I am over the age of 18 years,not a party to this action, and competent to be a
4 witness herein;
5 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman LLP, caused true and
6 correct copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
7 1. Applicant's Response to Dan Palmer's Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's
Final Decision on the Avana Ridge PUD; and this;
8 2. Certificate of Service;
9 and that on June 16, 2016, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as
10 follows:
11 ORIGINAL: ❑ By U.S. Mail
City of Renton � By Legal Messenger
12 City Clerk's Office ❑ By Email:
13 1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor
Renton, WA 98057
14
COPY: � By U.S. Mail
15 Lawrence J. Warren ❑ By Legal Messenger
Renton City Attorney � By Email:
16 City of Renton LWarren(a�Rentonwa.gov
1� 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
18
COPY: � By U.S. Mail
19 Rocale Timmons ❑ By Legal Messenger
Senior Planner � By Email:
20 City of Renton Department of Community& RTimmon�Rentonwa. ov
21 Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
22 Renton,WA 98057
23 Cppy; � By U.S. Mail
Dan Palmer ❑ By Legal Messenger
24 16638 106`� Street ❑ By Email:
25 Renton, WA 98059
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 10 � Van Ness
Feldman «P
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69230.7 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
, �''" "� AGENDA I TE #8, b)
1 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
2 the foregoing is true and correct.
3 EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 16th day of June, 2016.
4
5
Jennifer Hicok, eclarant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE- 11 Van Ness
� Feldman«P
' 6923a•7 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� "'�''' ``�""` AGENDA ITE #8, b)
C1TY QF RENTON pry�.
'Z;�� f
1 JUN 2 9 2016 �n ��
2 RECEIVED �� CO
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE u�
3
4
5
6
7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
RE: Appeal by Dan Palmer of
9 APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF
AVANA RIDGE PUD APPEARANCE
10
Preliminary Planned Urban
11 Development
12 LUA-15-000894
13
14 TO: City Clerk, City of Renton
15 AND TO: Lawrence J. Warren, Renton City Attorney
16 AND TO: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Senior Planner
1� AND TO: Dan Palmer
18
19 YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Brent Carson, Van Ness Feldman
20 LLP, does hereby appear in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Applicant, Avana
21 Ridge PUD, Avana Ridge LLC. The undersigned attorney requests that all papers and
22 pleadings herein be served at the address stated below:
23 Brent Carson
Van Ness Feldman LLP
24 719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle,WA 98104
25
APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE- 1 ' Van Ness
Feldman�
69473-1 �0���'�A� 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
1•� Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� �'` � AGENDA ITE #8, b)
1 Dated this 29th day of June,2016.
2
3 VAN NEss FELDMA1v LLP
4
;�
5 ,�
B C son, WSBA#16240
6 9 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
� Tel: (206)623-9372
Fax: (206) 623-4986
g E-mail:brc(�a,vnf.com
9
Attorney for Avana Ridge LLC
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
APPLICANT'S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE-2 ' Van Ness
Feldman LLP
69473-1 719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
� �`�"' �' AGENDA ITE #8. b)
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I,Jennifer Hicok, declare as follows:
3 That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
4 witness herein;
5 That I, as a legal assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman LLP, caused true and
6 conect copies of the following documents to be delivered as set forth below:
7 1. Applicant's Notice of Appearance; and this
2. Certificate of Service;
8
and that on June 29, 2016, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery as
9
follows:
10
ORIGINAL: ❑ By U.S. Mail
11 Jason A. Seth, CMC � By Legal Messenger
City Clerk ❑ By Email:
12 City of Renton
13 City Clerk's Office
1055 South Grady Way, Seventh Floor
14 Renton,WA 98057
15 COPY: By U.S. Mail
Lawrence J. Warren By Legal Messenger
16 Renton City Attorney By Email:
City of Renton LWarren(a�Rentonwa.gov
17 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
18
COPY: � By U.S. Mail
19 Rocale Timmons ❑ By Legal Messenger
20 Senior Planner � By Email:
City of Renton Department of Community& RTimmons�a�,Rentonwa.gov
21 Economic Development
1055 South Grady Way
22 Renton,WA 98057
23 COPY: � By U.S. Mail
Dan Palmer ❑ By Legal Messenger
24 16638 106th Street ❑ By Email:
Renton, WA 98059
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-3 ( Van Ness
Feldman�
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
69473-1 Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
�
� � � AGENDA ITE #8, b)
1 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
2 the foregoing is true and correct.
3 EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 29th day of June, 2016.
4
5 �
n� �
Jenni r Hico eclarant
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE-4 ' Van Ness
Feldman uP
69473-1
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623-9372
"''�' A 1 TEM #8. b)
DeMay�Law City Of �Y
� U O�
� �
� � � ♦
��N��?
City Clerk -Jason A.Seth,CMC
lune 14, 2016
APPEAL FILED BY: Dan Palmer
RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 24, 2016, regarding Avana Ridge PUD.
(File No. LUA-15-000894 PP, PPPUD)
To Parties of Record:
Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision on the Avana Ridge PUD has been filed with the City Clerk.
In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the
notice of appea(, or after all appeal periods with the Flearing Examiner have expired, the City
Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may
submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of
the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by
5:00 p.m., Fridav.June 24, 2016.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be
reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m.on Thursdav,July
28.2016, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way,
Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for
consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting.
Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipa) Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner
decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering
the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a
showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the
prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimonv on this matter
will be accepted by the City Council.
1055 South Grady Way•Renton,Washington 98057•(425)430-6510/Fax(425)430-6516•rentonwa.gov
``�'' `�'' AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
For additionai information or assistance, please call lason Seth, City Clerk, at 4�5-430-6510.
Sincerely,
�
as n A.Seth, CMC
City Cierk
*Please note that if you signed up to be a Party of Record for this matter you are receiving a
copy of this letter as a courtesy.
Attachments
cc: Hearing Examiner
Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Jennifer Henning,Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth,Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell,Building Official
Sabrina Mirante,Secretary,Planning Division
Ed Prince,City Councilmember
Julia Medzegian,City Council Liaison
Justin Lagers,Avana Ridge LLC,Contact
*Parties of Record(25)
��
������- /���� � _ �AG����-►� #8. b)
� �
� ��. ''^ �� -- � � �� JUN 0 7 2016 ,���
� . ��
RECEIVED
r , 6:^- JC C������� � CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
. �/'/' ( � �
ii.r�' . , .
�
.���s�� �« '� �����.��
� _/, . /�� ' �
�%'/ C,�Y d� ��"? �( <-=-� �c"l'S/ � �
� �� r �� �.
. •,��t. 1"�" .�
Y\ l'���� �� Z ���vr�r c�
M ♦/ \
. • � \ � �'�"�►�---� � i �. � � �
� , `�`� � � _.� �a� , �. ..5� � ' ✓� o" �G�
� ��
�/J���� c� � C's r O�
� / i' ,• � � , • i�
. � ,
��,�=y�� � U�� a� ��Q /���'
� .s c� � � �,�� � � - �✓
C�-�- l,Q� r' ir�•�! ' �'�_
� � �/ �'�o
��� s ��r' t� S'-- ��^�`��-' C--���--�rG�-�'
• • � -
°'�.. , .,
r.. � �� �(. ,• ��v p��� �� �r Q c{� c��/
� /' /�} / /�� � /
��%/���� ..
... + _ ����i'� , / G/�� /������'I � / V��� ��� ��' /�
�G� �� � � -
����� �� 5� `�I �" ��
- • �� � c�c�� : �.� "�- � ' �
. . . .A �� w . . . . • � '
��/��O�J . C"'v.� ����y v?/ ���" c�C����'
_ ` -
' ' ��/`�-�.. '� �!7 �v'o v� � ' ��'����
� �� ,�
�d A� � .� G�' � ��.���
� • /� / ,�/
C> � '�c.�" ,��r s�' ��`'�cS l�;� �L� � Y'
� � �
� �� � . ,�����a� ' � ��c��
� � � ��
���-�/ �� � �/ �� � � �a.✓�
`�...• . ._, � - /' , .
�,S'C/` �c� � � , J` � �F� ��/p ll �
�r ,' ., ^ �
/�, �-`�/ ' �-.i � , . .
�t �"" , . s :- � � ""�'" = qGENDA ITEM #8, b)
� , � ..
� .
@i �
1
'' �...� C`�/"�� �'/�7L� �`' . .� �✓�j
� �� �
� ��c-� �o,� ,��1. � ���`,
r
, � � � ; � , c v �' c,�..�' ��� �(� ���
,
� � �! � y �
N
t /�'�� � S ` /� yJ�'
. ���/ 4 �Jc .`Z ` � ! � �� �V•/!� / � �
{ ^ ` � � �
i "c,C/ �� �/ /2-C�j � . �'� - �//� ��5�(�
� � � � �
� • ' '` , ; ' � �,�
/''���'� c�� ��' d�� �� �,•�%�'
� � � . .
. _ � ..5��� , .
. .'., ` i � - > . •' �.
. " ���' / P �' v � y c� � r�.r' �s
� �
� � �
��Q��� ��r�@� � r �
� � ���,ss�� .,�:�' -s �,�c�� � � "
, � < <
� � �o�C�� �-� � s .. c3 0�° � - �'.S'� �'��Z�'
�,�. - . - , c
� � �'d ,►� w �'�.��o _ /' ��jl`>`�/�
�� c' �' �'� �� ��C-�- ��, 9 /��Q /"�
� �... /
. �
�� �'�� .G�lj-� U�1 C��•�
� -� �
� v sl !� . s �, �� , C'c� ��G"�'I C)�i'P
� �
• , , � N '
� �y. '
, .
� _ � . l. c��� � ����
v���-.s8 � ��%�� � �-z��---�
�
, � A , y
� .. ..
`� b���`L��'(� � �C`3��� --S � � ' .r�rr+`
+ /r�`
�� '�� � S�S ��'S� `'!� !� /`'� G�S�
s� � �
�
'''�'` = "� AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
t
z
3
4
5
6
7
8 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9 )
RE: Avana Ridge PUD )
10 ) FINAL DECISION
�l Preiiminary Planned Urban �
Development �
12 )
LUAI 5-000894, PP, PPUD )
13 )
14
SUMMARY
15
�6 The applicant proposes a preliminary planned urban development for the construction of two multi-
family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcel for a total of 74 dwelling units. The applicant seeks PUD
17 approval in order to vary from a number of zoning code standards, inciuding an increase in allowed
building and retaining wall height, a reduction in required roof pitch, a decrease in required parking
1 g and a decrease in required private open space. The PUD is approved subject to conditions.
19 TESTIMONY
20
Note: The following is a sarmmary of testimony provided for the convenience of the reader only ancl
2� should not be constrared as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law. The focus upon or
exclusion of any particular testimony or hearing evidence in this sarmmary rs not reflective of the
22 prioriry or probative content of any particular hearing evidence and no assurance is made as to
23 accuracy.
24 Rocale Timmons, senior City of Renton planner, summarized the proposal. She noted that
recommended Conditions 14 and 15 of the staff report, requiring dedications for light fixtures, was in
25 error as there is sufficient space proposed for the lights. The two conditions should be stricken. (n
response to examiner questions, Ms. Timmons noted that property to the east is zoned Residential 8.
26 She also noted that there has been no indication that the proposal wouid impair any views. Traf�c
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- L
�"' {� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
1 calming features were considered for access roads and in staff's opinion the proposed speed radar
2 signs were sufficient to control speeds. There is no public trail system close by. Sidewaik
improvements are required for the intersection of 172"d and Benson Rd. S. in order to assure safe
3 walking conditions to school bus stops and continuous sidewalk connections to the surrounding
sidewalk network.
4
Rohini Nair, City of Renton traffic engineer, noted that queuing issues on Benson Road South and
5 Benson Drive South was a major neighborhood concern. The City had the applicant's traffic engineer
6 modei queuing and from this it was found that new turning restrictions proposed for the project would
reduce current queuing off of Benson Road South. A new condition of approval will be submitted by
7 staff to require the new turn restrictions. Regarding speeding on 104 and106, it is staf�s opinion that
the radar speed signs will adequate(y address the problem.
8
9 Brian Paldar, project architect, noted that as a result of project modifications necessitated by permit
review the applicant needs to request a minor increase in the proposed height from 8' 3" floor to
�p ceiling to an 8' 6" floor to ceiling to accommodate ventifation systems. The east building will still be
under the 40 foot limit. The west building will need to be increased in height 1.6 feet for a total of
11 41.6 feet. No changes are proposed to the roof line. The PUD process enables the applicant to
�2 preserve a lot of on-site vegetation and other natural features. There will be no view impacts since
existing trees are up to 60 feet high, taller than the proposed buildings. Any existing territoria( views
i3 Would be to the west and would be unaffected by the proposal. In response to examiner questions,
there currently is no on-street parking on SE 172"d St. Mr. Paldar also noted that the "eyes on the
14 street" caused by dwellings overlooking 172"d, as well as more pedestrians using the proposed
pedestrian facilities, would probably serve to reduce crime.
15
�6 Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer, noted that the channelization changes that would improve
queuing from the Benson Road S. access would be composed of a left turn lane and a shared left and
17 right turn lane and a change out in a traffic signal face. With the channelization changes the queue
lengths are reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and will be shorter than pre-development conditions.
1 g The channelization changes double vehicle storage space.
19
Doug Goods, neighbor, doesn't support or oppose the project, he just wants to make sure his concerns
2p are addressed. He has seen a significant increase in traffic in the vicinity over the years. Traffic
backs up all the way from Puget Drive. He wanted to know why the applicant's proposal to put in a
21 median on 172"d wasn't recommended by staff. He doesn't believe that the applicant's solution to the
22 queuing problem will be solved by the rechanneling, given the amount of new development in the
area. He felt that more traffic calming measures should be implemented for 104 and 106`h avenues,
23 such as speed bumps, however he's not as concerned as much about speed as he is about increased
traffic.
24
25 Molly Moss, neighbor, is against the proposal. She fee(s that the access to 172°d street wi(I increase
traffic on her street (104`h) as well as 1 OS`h and 106t"avenues. Currently the neighborhood has a low
26 level of traffic. This will be a safety hazard as the streets are currently used by children. None of the
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-2
''"�" '"�` AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
1 roads have uninterrupted sidewalks to Nelson Middle 5chool.
2 Je Miller, nei hbor, noted that the streets im acted b the
�Y S p y proposal haven't been adequately
3 described. There's a new development at the northeastern corner of intersection of Benson and 172nd
with several dozen units and this wili add to the traffic problem. If the right in/right out 172nd
4 solution proposed by the applicant for 172"d were to be implemented, people would be doing u-turns
on their driveway so he and Anna Miller are opposed to that solution.
5
6 Anna Mil(er, neighbor, noted that parking from the project will spill onto adjoining streets making
traffic circulation difficult. 172nd is very narrow and traffic is already very poor in the area. In the
� next 5-10 years traffic will be a nightmare.
g Paul Skulstad, neighbor, felt that access to the proposal should be from SR 515 instead of 172"d. The
9 surrounding community doesn't have sidewalks for students walking to and from school. Electronic
radar signs aren't needed. 172"d has a portion that's like a washboard, which slows down vehicles.
�p The traffic analysis for the project doesn't take into account traffic that wi(1 be generated by other
projects in the pipeline, including a large apartment complex directly across the street and a medical
11 dental comp(ex. People are having trouble finding parking already in the apartment complex and it
12 hasn't been completed yet. There's also another 21 lot subdivision and another complex on Benson
being constructed. The Benson and Benson intersection needs to be redone. The two left turn lane
13 solution was obvious. There should be a third left turn lane.
14 Karen and Polo Cantu, neighbors, noted that the roads of her neighborhood do not have sidewalks or
shoulders. Her and her husband purchased their home because of the uncommonly spacious lots and
l5 quiet neighborhood. She still feels safe wa(king the streets. The proposed access onto 172"d St. is too
l6 close to the 106`h Ave. Residents of the proposed apartments will quickly realize that driving through
the neighborhood will be much quicker than driving through the Benson/Benson intersection. A
17 radar speed sign will not reduce the volume of traffic. The traffic study doesn't account for new
development or the impact on 106`" street and other neighborhood roads. Based upon 1.8 cars per
1 g dwelling unit and round up to two cars to account for visitors, the proposed parking is insufficient.
19 The access should be moved from 172"d to SR 515. l72"d St. is inaccurately classified as a
commercial street in the ERC report. It currently primarily serves residential use.
20
Nancy Stanley, neighbor, noted that the 162 unit Trails apartment complex across the street is still
2� under construction and its traffic impacts haven't been fully evaluated.
22 Danny Kumono, neighbor from Kelsey Court condominiums, affirmed that the traffic impacts of the
23 Trails complex hasn't yet been realized as its still under construction. Crime has increased as a result
of the Trails. Cars turning right onto
24 Benson from 172"d aren't slowing down. Visibility is poor because of the road curvature, so there are
25 a lot of close calls in making a left turn. In the evening the BensonBenson intersection is fully
congested and it's not possible to make a left turn. A larger area should be considered when doing a
26 traffic ana(ysis.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-3
� �` AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1
2 Dan Palmer, neighbor, noted that 104`h, l OSth and 106th has been an oasis of a neighborhood with big
yards and yuiet streets. There's currently no through traffic. There's no vehicle pollution. There are
3 people with respiratory probiems in the neighborhood who will be adversely affected by the polIution
from increased traffic. He noted there are no sidewalks, stormwater systems or lights on the roads.
4 The neighborhood is full of wildlife and trees and is an important watershed area. High impact
buildings are not compatible with this environmentally fragile area. Transfer of development rights
5 would work wel) here. The building design is not compatible with the surrounding 60 year and turn
6 of the century homes. Even the new CVC store is more aesthetically pleasing.
� In rebuttal, Ms. Timmons noted that the area was annexed into the City from King County in 2008,
which is why the streets don't have sidewalks or street lighting. The site was zoned commercial
g arterial when it was annexed into the city. That zoning designation allowed 60 du per acre. A
9 subsequent rezone reduced the density to the currently applicable 20 du per acre. The site serves as a
transition zone from the commercial development to the south to the residential use to the north.
10 �72�d �s classified as a commercial use street because of the transportation needs to the south. The
proposed development will create many of the improvements necessary to upgrade 172"d to
11 commercial use. The City currently has no transfer of development rights program. The design of the
12 project is set by the City's design standards. SR 515 would not be a suitable access point because of
significant change in grade at the southern portion of the site. Several retaining wal(s are necessary to
13 stabilize this portion of the project. SR 515 is a commercial arterial street and the City limits access
points. WSDOT would also restrict access from the state road. There are also critical areas that
14 would prevent access from the south. Parking is set by city code based upon the number of
bedrooms, which in this case is 96 stal(s. The applicant has requested a two stall reduction. The
�5 project site has a significant amount of open space to accommodate wildlife. The applicant's request
16 for an additional 1.5 feet in building height has been reviewed by City staff. Given the extensive
number of PUD benefits and large amount of open space, staff supports the request for additiona(
17 height. As to safe routes to schools, it's expected that students will not use l06/104/105 roads to get
to Nelson Middle School. They would use Benson Road to watk safely to Nelson. Molly Moss noted
18 that while student from the proposal may use Benson Road, students residing on 106/104/105 woufd
19 still be walking their neighborhood roads.
2p In response to examiner questions, Ms. Nair noted that the traffic study included traffic from all
approved land use applications, including the Trails project across the street. The lane conftguration
2� will result in improved queuing lengths even with the traffic of the Trai[s project taken into
22 consideration. Staff is not opposed to having south bound traffic subject to a radar speed sign as well
on 104`h and l 06th streets. WSDOT may not approve a direct access onto SR S l5 because of the
23 avaitability of other access routes.
24 Larry Hobbs, applicant's traffic engineer,testified that the traffic report was prepared pursuant to City
25 guidelines and trip generation estimates from the latest edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
The report was subjected to peer review, which concurred with the traffic analysis. The Trails project
26 was included in the background traffic along with a percentage traffic growth rate required by the
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-4
'"�' 3'"'�` A GENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 City. The traffic analysis concluded that 10% of the AM peak hour traffic would be heading west
2 (using 106/104/105), which is 4 trips and five trips for PM peak hour. This is only one additional
vehicle every 12 or 15 minutes on the three streets. The radar speed limit sign isn't necessary.
3 WSDOT would not allow access onto SR 515 since other reasonable access is available.
4 Brent Carson, applicanYs attorney, noted that the land use designations of the site could not be
questioned at this point. Many of the concerns of the neighbors concern SEPA issues that haven't
5 been appealed. Given the minor number oftrips generated on 106/104/105 and verification from peer
b review on the applicant's analysis of this issue, the City has no nexus and proportionality to require
mitigation such as the radar control led sign.
7
g EXHIBITS
9 The May 10, 2016 Staff report in addition to Exhibits 1-23 identified in pages 2 of the Staff
10 Report were admitted into the record at the May 10, 2016 hearing. The staff power point
presentation was admitted as Ex. 24. Revised elevations were submitted by the application and
�� admitted as Ex. 25. Ex. 26 was submitted by the applicant and admitted as a color site plan. Ex.
27 were admitted as west building elevations and Ex. 28 as east building elevations. Google
12 maps was admitted as Ex. 29.
13
FINDINGS OF FACT
14
Proced u ral:
15
16 � Applicant. Avana Ridge LLC.
17
2. Hearin�. A hearing on the application was held on May 10,2016.
18
Substantive:
19
20 3. Project Descr�tion. The applicant proposes a preliminary planned urban development for the
construction of two multi-family buildings on a 3.8 acre parcel for a total of 74 dwelling units. The
21 requested modifications are summarized as follows:
22
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification
23 RMC 4-2-110A Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal inciudes a roof pitch
24 Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12
Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical
25 Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate
Designations- Roof height.
26 Pitch
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 5
'`�""` �"'�` AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 RMC 4-2-110A A maximum building height of 3 The proposal includes a height of
�evelopment stories with a wall plate height of 30 46-feet and 5-inches as measured
2 Standards for feet is permitted. from average grade plane to the
3 Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof
Designations- Roof elements.
q. Pitch
5 RMC 4-6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Various: See discussion under FOF
Standards PUD Criteria-Circulation xx: PUD Criteria-Circulation
6 RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Various: See discussion under FOF
� Design Standards Design District`D'Standards xx: Design District'B'Standards
RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a The applicant proposed a total of
g Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking 94 spaces within surface parking
Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to areas. The proposal does not
9 meet code.
comply with the minimum parking
10 stall requirements.
� RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit The proposal includes a single
11 and Recyclables area/collection point for every thirty refuse/recycle storage location
12 Standards (30)dwelling units. centrally located, between both
buildings at the center of the site.
13 RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for A section of the keystone-type wall
14 Retaining Wall Height retaining walls located within front located near the monument sign at
yard/side yard along-a-street the Benson Road/Benson Drive
15 setbacks, and 72 inches for wafls intersection is proposed at a height
elsewhere on site. of 5.5 feet. A section of the
�6 keystone-type wall located near the
monument sign at the Benson
�� Road/Benson Drive intersection is S
�g feet and 6-inches tall.
RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall The current proposal provides
19 Private Open Space have usable private open space for 4,156 SF of private, attached open
20 the exclusive use of the occupants of space through the use of private
that unit in compliance with balconies for some of the units
21 dimensional standards. which does not comply with the
dimensional standards.
22
23
The project site is currentiy vacant and bisected by a stream. Access to the site is proposed via SE
24 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S.
25 The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the property.
26 4. Ade uac of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-6
�"'` ; '�'° AGENDA I TEM #8. b)
i
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
2 provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. A water and sewer availability
3 certificate from the Soos Creek utility district was submitted to the City with the land use
4 application. Approved water and sewer plans from Soos Creek are required to be
provided during utility construction permit approval.
5
6 B. Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the City of Renton Fire Department.
� C. Draina�e. In conjunction with the City's stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates
g all significant drainage impacts. New impervious surfaces would result in surface water
runoff increases. The Applicants submitted a Technical Information Report ("Drainage
9 Report") with the project application (Exhibit 9). The stormwater detention and water
l0 quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault
under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined
11 detention/water qua(ity vault would be fol(owed by a media filtration system to
12 accommodate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment requirements for multi-family
development. Further staff review will be conducted for final PUD approval.
13
14 D. Parks/O,pen Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space. For parks
impacts, the applicant will be paying a park impact fee, which is currently assessed at
I S $975.50 per multi-family dwelling unit.
16
17 The proposed development is designed specifically to increase the access and opportunity
for open space and in sheer numbers harbors a significant amount of open space as well.
1 g The project includes 19,795 square feet of community open space in the southern portion
19 of the site in addition to 49,918 square feet of critical area space. Beyond the space
20 required for critical areas, Renton has no public open space requirements for multi-family
developments except for some nonspecific standards in its design regulations. A smatl
21 fenced off-leash dog run is provided at the east side of the site between a landscape buffer
22 and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. The multiple open
spaces throughout the site are well designed and provide a variety of recreational
23 opportunities both passive and active. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower
24 area of the site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the
open space and the residential developments.
25
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-7
`� �� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
I A central path and compiementing pedestrian bridge crossing will be constructed to create
2 an access point to the southern community open space from the surface parking lot. The
large area would be ample usable space for passive recreation and special events such as
3 picnics, parties, weddings, movie night in the park, concerts, etc.; thereby promoting
4 community involvement. Additionally, the space would take advantage of and display the
attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the space would serve to preserve and
5 enhance existing vegetation and natural character through tree preservation, removal of
6 extensive invasive Blackbenies, and replacement with native understory vegetation to be
maintained through the life of the development.
� The space features a large, centra(, gently sloping lawn for casual seating and recreation.
g The lawn is oriented to slope down towards an open pavilion whose intended use includes
perfoemances, and community gatherings. The pavilion is also sited to capture and frame
9 the attractive tercitorial views to the West.
10
The applicant has indicated that there is an opportunity to include interpretive
� � signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, landscaping, drainage,
12 architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at strategic place(s} on site. The use of
interpretive signage would result in an increase in public benefit for the overall project.
�3 Therefore, a condition of approval requires the applicant to provide interpretive
14 signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees, (andscaping, drainage,
�5 architecture,etc.)of the proposed development at a strategic place(s)on site.
16 A resident amenity lounge (ocated on Level 1 of the West building takes advantage of
i� outdoor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces, barbecues,
and Iounge areas for a variety of opportunities for the residents. The area opens up the
1 g western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings visual interest to
19 what would normally be considered the"side"elevation of the project.
20
21 E. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for an appropriate pedestrian circulation
system. The applicant has proposed a series of pedestrian connections throughout the site
22 however it is unclear if there is a differentiation of materials across the drive aisles
23 (Exhibit 2). Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the
applicant to revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian
24 connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site.
25
F. Off-Site Traffic Improvements. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate off-
26 site street infrastructure.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOAMENT- 8
�` ;`'�''° AGENDA 1 TEM #8. b)
i
2 Based upon the applicant's traffic impact analysis ("TIA"), Ex. I5, staff have determined
that the project will comply with the City's level of service standards. It is anticipated that
3 the proposed development would generate approximately 492 average daily trips with 38
4 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peak-hour trips. The TIA assessed traffic impacts on three
affected intersections as required by City standards. The TIA concluded that all
5 intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the proposed development.
6 Staff have also determined that the proposal passes City concurrency standards as outlined
in Ex. 23. Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed
� project and traffic growth in the study area. Traffic signal warranty analysis was also
g provided at the intersection of SE 172nd St and Benson Rd S. The report states there is no
need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project. The TIA concludes that sight
9 distance requirements are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172nd St and with
�p vegetation trimming, within the right of way, at the site access driveway to Benson Rd S
(Exhibit 15). et. The conclusions of the report were accepted by staff and not disputed by
I 1 a qualified traffic expert, therefore they are taken as verities. Staff also concluded in the
�2 staff report that the proposed circulation system is adequate to accommodate emergency
vehicles and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Payment of traffic impact
13 fees as required by the Renton Municipal Code will assure that the appiicant pays its
14 proportionate share of system-wide traffic improvements.
IS
A major concern of the neighbors was traffic impacts to 106 Ave SE, 104 Ave SE and 105
16 Ave SE. In uncontested testimony, several neighbors testified that these roads are
1� isolated, currently accommodate a minimal amount of traffic and are not develaped with
sidewalks or shoulders that can be used for pedestrian traffic. By contrast, the project's
1 g access to SR 515, the most likely thoroughfare to be used by project residents, can only be
19 directly accessed by passing through the Benson Road SJSR 515 intersection, which is
subject to severe congestion during the AM and PM peak hour. Neighbors are concerned
20 that this congestion wi(1 cause vehicles going to and leaving the project site to drive
21 through the 105/104/106 Ave SE roads. A SEPA mitigation measure requires the
installation of speed radar signs for southbound traffic on 104`h and 106`h to slow down
22 some of this new traffic. Although a review of the surrounding road network shows that
23 persons may very well choose to drive through 105/104/106 to avoid the Benson/SR Sl5
intersection a well as other traffic problems in the area, the applicant's traffic analysis
24 reveals that the project will only add five PM peak hour trips and four AM peak hour trips
25 into the 105/104/106 roads. The applicant's traffic analysis was verified by peer review.
Given the expert traffic analysis prepared by the appticant and the independent expert
26 verification conducted under the peer review, the applicant's traffic analysis is taken as a
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT- 9
"''�'"' ;'�' AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 verity given the absence of any expert testimony to the contrary. With only a maximum of
2 five additional trips per hour generated by the proposal, there is no basis to require more
than the speed radar signs required by the SEPA mitigation measures. Neighborhood
3 residents are certainly correct to assert that the cumulative impacts of all projects must be
4 considered when assessing traffic impacts, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that
the speed radar sign required of the applicant is less than the applicant's fair share of
5 mitigating these cumulative impacts. Case law is very clear in the State of Washington
6 that the City has the burden of proof in establishing that any required road improvements
are proportional and attributable to impacts created by development. See Barrton v. Clark
� County, 91 Wn. App. 505, 516-1� (1998). For this application, there is no evidence to
g suggest that more than the speed radar signs required by SEPA is necessary to off-set the
traffic impacts caused by the proposal on the 105/104/106 roads.
9
10 Another issue frequently cited by neighbors was the queuing length at the Benson Road
S./SR 515 intersection. Uncontested traffic analysis conducted by the applicant
1� establishes that with re-channelization measures required by this decision, queue lengths
12 will be reduced from 372 feet to 212 feet and will be shorter than pre-development
conditions, even when added traffic from recently approved development projects is
�3 incorporated into the analysis. Since the proposal will be improving upon existing
14 queuing conditions at the Benson Road S./SR 515 intersection, no further mitigation can
I S be required.
16 A few neighbors also suggested that project access directly connect to SR 515 instead of
�� SE 172"d St. As testified by City staff, direct access onto a limited access thoroughfare
such as SR 515 is avoided by both the City and the state (which also regulates SR 515
18 access) when reasonable alternate project access is available. Furthec, direct access would
�9 be highly challenging given the critical areas (stream and coal mine hazard) and steep
grade on the south portion of the project site. Direct access to SR 515 is not warranted or
20 feasible for this project.
21
Several people also testified about walking conditions to and from school. Students may
22 very wetl be walking to Nelson Middle School, located to the north of the project site.
23 Nelson Middle School can be accessed via Benson Road S. which has sidewalks between
the school and the project site. As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be
24 constructed along the frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk
25 system. However, the frontage along the daycare center at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Benson Road S. and SE 172"d Ave is missing some sidewalk linkage. For
26 this reason, the conditions of approval require improvements to be made along the day
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
10
"�` � ""� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
1 care frontage to fill in the missing sidewalk connections. As noted by Ms. Moss,there are
2 still no sidewalks along the 105/104/106 streets. As previously discussed, the proposal
will add a minor amount of traffic to these roads, and for the reasons previously discussed,
3 the speed radar sign required of the applicant adequately mitigates against the applicant's
4 proportionate share of impacts to these roads.
5 A few neighbors testified that they believed that the applicant's traffic analysis did not
6 include traffic generated by other projects. However, as testified by both staff and the
applicant, the applicant's traffic analysis did in fact factor in the traffic of currently
� approved projects as well as a general background traffic increase factor required by City
g standards.
9
�p 5. Adverse Im�acts. Since the project provides for adequate infrastructure and public services,
the only remaining impacts to be considered are to critica( areas. There are two critical areas at the
�1 project site — a Type Ns stream bisects the project site and a high coal mine hazard is located in the
�2 southern portion of the site.
�3 A. Hi�h Coal Mine Hazard. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to
address any significant adverse impacts to coal mine hazards. High Coal Mine Hazards are
14 considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas undertain
by mine workings sha(lower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower
�5 than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas
16 may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was
performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on March 22, 2004 and January 20, 2009
17 (Exhibits 7 and 8}. The studies found that the southern portion of the project site overlays
a historic coal mine known as the Springbrook Mine, along with the opening to the mine.
1 g The study further found that the Springbrook Mine meets the City's criteria for a high coal
�9 mine hazard.
20 Several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry
were included in the 1cicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fill at the
Z� mine entry and backfilling with control(ed density fill (Exhibit 8). However, these
22 recommendations were based on a former development proposal which included structures
in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is setback approximately 125
23 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as the former
development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational
24 improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected
by mining related subsidence.
25
26 A SEPA mitigation measure was issued requiring an updated Coai Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVEL,OPMENT-
11
`"� ;�` AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
� adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development
2 can be safely accommodated on the site(Exhibit 20).
3 B. Type Ns Stream. As conditioned, the proposal has been adequately mitigated to address
any impacts to the on-site stream. The app(icant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental
4 Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 201 S (Exhibit
10). The report identifies an unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A)that bisects the northern
5 and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3-
6 OSO.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow
and lack of fish use. Class Ns streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from
7 the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) as well as a 15-foot setback from the edge of the
buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging for portions of the
g stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the stream and
9 its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. With the conditions recommended in the
staff report (and adopted by this decision), the proposed buffer averaging and stream
10 a(teration conforms to the City's critical areas regulations for the reasons identified at page
i 4 of the staff report.
11
12 C. Wi[dlifeNegetation. As noted in the applicant's habitat assessment, there are no state or
federally listed species on or near the site and there are no rare or unique plant
13 communities on the site. The only wild(ife/vegetation subject to protection at the project
site are trees. The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations require
14 the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development. As noted at p. 10 of the
staff report, the City's tree retention standards specifically require the retention of 42 trees
�5 and the applicant is retaining 46 trees. As further noted at p. 10, City tree density
16 requirements require a total of at least 132 trees at the project site. A condition of approval
requires that the applicant demonstrate compliance with this standard as the application
17 materials are unclear as to the total amount of trees that will be planted at the project site.
Beyond trees, since there are no wiidlife species specifically protected by City of Renton
Ig regulations, there is no basis to regulate or restrict the project based upon wildlife or
19 vegetation impacts.
20 D. Compatibility. The project is compatible with surrounding development as it is within the
range of densities authorized by applicable zoning standards and is heavily regulated by
2I the Citys "Design District B" design standards. As testified by staff, the intermediate
22 densities authorized for the site are intended to serve as a transition between the
commercial uses to the south and the residential uses to the north. The higher densities of
23 the project site, compared to the northern residential uses, is mitigated by the perimeter
landscaping and emphasis upon aesthetic design imposed by the City's design standards.
24 On the north perimeter of the project, where compatibi(ity issues would be most
25 pronounced, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the surface parking
lot through the use of landscape buffers, building modulation and new proposed street
26 trees. The design may not bear any similarity to the design of the turn of century homes in
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
12
� �`� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
1 the vicinity, but the applicant was required to comply with Design District B standards and
no one has suggested that staff s finding of compliance with these standards was in error.
2
3 E. Respiratorv Problems. One neighbor testified that he was concerned that pollution caused
by increased project traffic would exacerbate the respiratory problems of some neighbors
4 living close to the project site. Without any scientific evidence to substantiate this
assertion, there is insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that the relatively modest
5 traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate respiratory problems.
6
'7 6. Superiority in Desi�n. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior design than
what would result by the strict application of the Development Standards for the following reasons:
g natural features, overali design, and building and site design. The proposed design provides for the
9 retention of the natural grade on site, significant trees and a noteworthy amount of landscaping and
re-vegetation. Additionally, the plan provides for both active and passive recreation spaces
10 significantly beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed design can provide for the
aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested for the PUD as outlined in Finding
> > of Fact No. 3. The modifications approved by this decision contribute to and enable the superior
12 design proposed for this project by increasing available space for open space and natural site features.
�3 7. Public Benefit. The proposai provides several public benefits as detailed in pages 17-20 of
the Staff Report, adopted and incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
14
15 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
16
l� 1. Authoritv. RMC 4-9-150(F)(8) authorizes the Examiner to conduct hearings and make final
decisions on planned urban development applications.
18
Substantive:
19
2. Zonin Comprehensive P(an Desi nations. The project site is zoned Residential Mu1ti-Family
20 (RMF)and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Residential High Density.
21
3. Review Criteria. A PUD may be pursued by "any applicant" as authorized by RMC 4-9-
22 150(B), which is interpreted to authorize the application of PUD regulations to multi-family
23 development projects. RMC 4-9-150(D) governs PUD criteria. Those criteria are quoted below in
italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
24
RMC 4-9-150(B)(2): Code Provisions That May Be Modifred.�
25
26 a. In approving a pfanned urban development, the City may mod�any of the standards of chnpter�l-
2 RMC, chapter�--�RMC, RMC 4-6-060 and chapter�1-7 RMC, except as listed in subsection B3 of
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
13
�'`° �°�+'° AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 this Section. All modifications shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned zrrban
2 development...
3 4. As shown in Finding of Fact No. 3, the requested revisions are timited to the regulations
identified in the regulation quoted above with the exception of the Private Open Space modification
4 to RMC 4-9-150.E.2. As such, the conditions of approval require that the applicant provide a revised
5 site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space standards of RMC 4-9-1 SO.E.2.
6 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a p[anned zirban development only if it finds that the
following reguirements are met.
7
g 1. Demonstration of Compliance and Superivrity Required: Applicants must clemonstrate that a
proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this Section and with the Comprehensive
9 Plan, that the proposed development wil! be superior to that which wozrld result without a planned
trrban development, and that the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrozrnding
10 properties.
�1 5. The criterion is met. The purposes of the PUD regulations, as outlined in RMC 4-9-150(A),
12 are to preserve and protect the natural features of the land and to encourage innovation and creativity
13 �n development of residential uses. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the natura! features of
the site are protected by open space, buffers and mitigation that significantly exceeds minimum code
l4 standards. The proposal involves innovation and creativity via the integration of critical area open
I S space into the recreational open space of the project site. The project is consistent with the
comprehensive plan as determined in Finding of Fact No. 22 of the staff report. As determined in
16 Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal is superior in design to what which would occur without a PUD.
17 As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5 the project will not create any significant adverse
impacts and so would not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
18
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
19 following requirements are met.
20 2. Pt�bCic Benefit Reqzrired: In addition, Applicants shall demonstrate that a proposed development
21 will provide specifically identifred benefrts that clearly ozthveigh any adverse impacts or undesirable
effects of the proposed plan�ed urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable
22 impacts to surrozrnding properties, and that the proposed development will provide one or more of
23 the following benefits than would resarlt from the development of the szrbject site without the proposed
planned urban development:
24
25 b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the subject
properry, such as signeficant woodlands, native vegetation, topography, or noncritical area
26 wildlife habitats, not otherwise reqttired by other Ciry regulations; or...
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
14
'� `� AGENDA 1TEM #8. b)
1 e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to the
design that would result from development of the subject property withoa�t a planned urban
2 development. A superior design may include the following.• ...
3
4 6. The proposal provides for public benefit by providing amenities related to natural features and
5 overall design that significantly exceed code standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 7. These
benefits clearly outweigh any adverse impacts since there are no significant adverse impacts
6 associated with the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5. The integration of the
� natural features of the site with the recreational/open spaces of the site is particularly well done and
will succeed in providing significant aesthetic and recreational benefits to project residents as well as
g retaining a significant amount of green space and vegetation for the surrounding community.
9 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development anly if it frnds that the
�p follawing reguirements are met.
11 ...
12 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria:
13
14 a• Bzrilding and Site Design:
15 i. Perimeter.�Size, scale, mass, character and architectirral c�esign along the plc�nned urban
development perimeter provide a sz�itable transition to adjacent or abiitting lower den.sity/intensity
16 Zones. Materials shall reduce the potentinl for light and glare.
17
7. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at page 21 of the staff report.
]8
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may crpprove a planned urban development only if it finds that the
�9 following reqz�irements are met.
20
21 3. Additional Review Criteria.• A proposed plan»ed urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with ull of the following criteria:
22
23 a. Building and Site Design:
24 �•
ii. Interior Design: Promotes a coordinated site and building desigrr. Buildings in groups should be
25 related 6y coordinated materials and roof styles, bz�t contrast should be provided throughout a site by
the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, burlding orientation or housing type; e.g., single
26 family, townhouses,flats, etc.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
15
"�' ;�'" AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
�
2 8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at pages 21-22 of the staff report.
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned zrrban development only if it finds that the
following rec�uirements ure met.
4
5 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
6 consistency with all of the following criteria
7 ..
b. Circulation:
S
9 i. Provides szrfficient streets and pedestrian fcrcilities. The plarrned trrban development shall have
si�cient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location, size and derrsity of the
�p proposed development. All public and private streets shall accommodate emergency vehicle access
and the traffrc demand created by the development as documented in a traffic and circulation report
>> approved by the Ciry. Vehicle access shall nol be undarly detrimental to udjacent areas.
12 9. The proposal provides for adequate streets and pedestrian facilities as determined in Finding
13 of Fact No. 4.
14 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrban development only if it finds that the
�5 follotiving requiremerrts nre met.
16 ••�
3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban developmerrt shall also be reviewed for
17 consistency with all of the following criteria
18
�9 b. Circulation:
20 ..
2I ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from pedestrians, limited
22 driveways on busy streets, avoidance of drffrcult tz�rning patterns, and minimization of steep
gradients.
23
10. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
24
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only i,f it finds that the
following requirements are met.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
16
'"� `� AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
� ..
2 3. Additional Review Criteria: A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
3
4 b. Circa�lation:
5
6
iii. Provision of n system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas, transit,public
� walkways, schools, and commercial activities.
g 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified at p. 22-26 of the staff report.
9
�p RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
following reqz�irements are met.
11
�2 3. Adrfitional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewec�for
�3 consistency with all of the following criteria
14 ..
b. Circulation:
15
16 ��
17
iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
18
19 12. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 4.
20
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City mny approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
2� following requirements are met.
22
23 3.Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
eonsistency with all of the following criteria
24
25 c. Infrastructure and Services:Provides utiliry services, emergency sen�ices, ancl other improvements,
existing and proposed, which are su�cient to serve the development.
26
PRELIMtNARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
17
�°" t �'" AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 13. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4,the proposal is served by sufficient public
2 infrastructure and services to serve the development.
3 RMC 4-9-150(D): The Ciry may approve a planned urban development only if it finc�s that the
following requirements are met.
4
5 3. Additional Review Criteria.• A proposed planned urbnn development shall also be reviewed far
6 consistency with all of the following criteria
7 ..
g �l Clusters or Building Groaeps and Open Space: An appearance of openness created by clustering,
9 separation of barilding groups, and through the atse of well-designed open space and landscaping, or
a reduction in amoz�nt of impervious szrrfaces not othern�ise required.
10
14. The project's principal PUD characteristic is its integration of clustered buildings strategically
i 1 (ocated adjacent to combined and well-designed open space and critical areas as outlined in Finding
12 of Fact No. 4(D).
13
RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned zrrban development only if it finds Ihat the
14 ,fallowing reqzrirements are met.
15
�6 3. Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shal/also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the f'ollowing criteria
17
18
�9 e. Privacy and&rilding Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwe[ling urrits, and ezternal
privacy for adjacent dwelling units. Each residential or mixed use development shall provide visual
2p and acoustical privucy for dwelling units and surrounding propertres. Fences, insulntion, walks,
barriers, and landscaping are used, as appropriate,for the prvtectio�and aesthetic enhancement of
2� the property, the privacy of stte occupants and surrounding praperties, and for screening of storage,
22 mechanical or other appropriate areas, unc�for the reduction of noise. Windows are placed at sa�ch a
height or location or screened to provide su�cient privacy. Sa�ficien[ light and air are provided to
23 each dwelling unrt.
24 1 S. The criterion is met for the reasons outlined at p. 28 of the staff report.
25 RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
26 following requirements are met.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
18
� �"` AGENDA 1TEM #8. b)
�
2 3.Additional Review Criteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
consistency with all of the following criteria
3
4
f. Building Orrentation:Provides barildings oriented to enhance views from within the site by taking
5 advantage of topography, building location and style.
6
16. The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward the offsite view vistas afforded
'7 in the naturally elevated site location. There is minimal orientation toward off site non view areas.
g RMC 4-9-150(D): The City may approve a planned urban development only if it finds that the
9 following regzrirements are met.
10 •�
3. Additional Revrew Crrteria:A proposed planned urban development shall also be reviewed for
I 1 consistency tivith all of the follnwing criteria
12
13
g. Parking Area Design:Provides parking areas that are complemented by land,scaping and not
14 designed in long rows. The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to typical designs, and
each area related to the groa�p of buildings served. The design provides for effrcient trse of parking,
�5 and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
16
17. Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large surface parking areas.
17 Instead the applicant is proposing the use of parallel parking stalls along the perimeter of the
proposed drive aisle. The surface parking design is comprised of 90-degree stalls to make maximum
1 g use of parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulation that promotes visibility. The use of
19 compact stalls is minimal and is well under the code-required maximums for compact stall counts.
2p RMC 4-9-150(D)(4): Each planned urban development shall demonstrnte compliance with the
development standards contained in subsection E of this Section, the zrnderlying zone, and any
21
overlay districts; unless a modrfrcation for a specific development standard has been requested
22 purszrant to subsection B2 of this Sectron.
23 18. As discussed below, the proposal compfies with all development standards imposed by RMC
24 4-9-150(E). The proposal is compliant with the standards of the underlying RMF zone for the
reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 23 of the staff report. As a project located in the RMF zone,
25 the project is in the District B design district as regulated by RMC 4-3-I00. For the reasons identified
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
19
'`�"' p;'�' AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
1 in Einding of Fact No. 29 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with ail District B design
2 standards.
3 RMC 4-9-150(E)(1): Common Open Space Standard.• Open space shall be concentrated in large
usable areas and may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for
4 residential, mixecl use, commercial, and industrial developments are described below.
5 a. Residential.• For residential developments open space marst equal at least terr percent(10%)of the
6 development site's gross land area.
7 i. Open space may incla�de, but is not limited to, the following:
8 (a)A trail that allows opportunity for passive recreation within a critical area ba ffer(only the sc�uare
9 footage of the trail shall be inclzrded in the open space area calcadation), or
�p (b)A sidewalk und its associated landscape strip, when abzdting the edge of a critical area bzrffer and
when a pc�rt of a new parblic or private road, or
11
�2 (c)A similar proposal as approved by the reviewing official.
�3 ii. Additionally, a mrnimum area eqaral to frfty(i0)square feet per unit of common space or
recreation area shall be provided in a concentrated space as illustrated in Figzrre 1.
14
I 5 �9' The 19,795 square feet of community space alone exceeds ten percent of the totai 164,827
square feet of the project area. This space, along with other open spaces provided in the project site,
16 also satisfies the requirement of 50 square feet per dwelling unit, for a total of 3,700 additional square
feet of open space.
17
�g RMC 4-9-150(E)(2): Private Open Space: Each residenttal unit in a plannec� arrban development
19 shall have usable private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, artd corridors)
for the exclatsive t�se of the occupants of that arnit. Each grozrnd floor unit, whether attached or
20 detached, shall have private open space which is contigzrous to the zrnit. The private open space shall
2� be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet (I S J in every dimension (decks on upper_jloors can
substitute for the required private open space). For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story
22 a�nits, there shall be deck areas totalin at least six
g ry (60) square feet in srze with no dimension less
23 than frve feet(5).
24 20. Ground related units do not have their own private open space. A condition of approval
25 requires that the applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open
space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. Not all upper story
26 residential units have private open space dimensioned at 60 feet. A condition of approva( requires
PRELIMINARY PLANN�p URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
20
'� �. "'� AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 that the applicant provide revised elevations for upper floor units demonstrating compliance with the
2 private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet.
3 RMC 4-9-150(E)(3): Installation and Maintenunce of Common Open Space:
4 a. Installation: All common area and open space shall be landscaped in accordance with the
landscaping plan szcbmitted by the Applicants and approved by the City;provided, that common open
5 space containing nata�ral featarres worthy of preservation may be left zrnimproved. Prior to the
6 issuance of any occarpancy permit, the developer shall furnish a securiry device to the Ciry in an
� amoirnt equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shnll be planted within one year of the
date of frnal approvnl of the planned urban development, and maintairred for a period of tu°o (2)
8 years thereafter prior to the release of the secarrity device. A secarriry device for provicling
9 maintenance of landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable
landscaping firm licerrsed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a two
10 (2)year period. A copy of sarch contract shall be kept on frle with the Development Services Divrsion.
11 b. Maintenance: Landscaping shall be maintained pursuant to requirements of RMC 4-�1-070.
12 21. As Conditioned.
13
RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
14
a. Installation: Prior to the issara»ce of any occatpancy permits, all common facilities, induding but
�5 not [imited to utrlities, storm drainage, streets, recreutian facilities, etc., sha[l he completed by the
16 developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her desrgnee,
assarrecl throz�gh a security device to the City eqa�al to the provisions of RMC�-9-060...
17
22. As Conditioned.
18
�9 RMC 4-9-150(E)(4): Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
20 ��
21 b. Maintenance: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by
the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the properry owners'
22 association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such facilitres are not maintained in a
23 responsible manner, as determined by the City, the Ciry shall have the right to provide for the
maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if
24 t�npaid, shall become a lien against each individiral property.
25
23. As conditioned.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
21
� -� AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
� DECISION
2 The proposed preliminary PUD meets al! applicable criteria quoted in this decision and for that
3 reason is APPROVED. Requested revisions to development standards identified in Finding of Fact
No. 3 are all approved except for revisions to RMC 4-9-150.E.2. The applicant's request for an
4 additional 1.5 feet in building height for the west building as proposed in Ex. 27 is also approved.
The proposal is subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
5
6 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the
Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated ERC Addendum,dated April 7,2016.
� 2. The applicant shall be required to record formal Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in
g order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The instrument
shall be recorded prior to building permit approval.
9 3. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current
10 P�anning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with RMC 4-
4-070.
� l 4. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132,
�2 two-inch caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those
trees located within the Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan
13 shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
construction permit approval.
14
5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a minimum three-foot
15 landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining walls abutting, or within,
public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover
�6 (trees are optional) in conformance with the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter
�� Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan shail be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
�g 6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in
�9 RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the
function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved
20 by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
21 7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in
RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the
22 function of the stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
23
8. The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the
24 site encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rail fencing and signage
along the outer edge of the buffer. The Final Mitigation plan shall include all
25 specifications for fencing and signage and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
26 Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELQPMENT-
22
`� � �''` A GENDA 1 TEM #8. b)
1 9. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree
2 retention inspection/monitoring reports after initia) clearing, final grading, and annually
for two years by a qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shall
3 identify any retained trees that develop problems due to changing site conditions and
prescribe mitigation.
4 10. The applicant shall provide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating
5 elements (trees, landscaping, drainage, architecture, ete.) of the proposed development at
a strategic place(s) on site. The site pian depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and
6 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permidFinal Plat
approval whichever comes first.
7
11. A detailed fencing plan shal( be provided identifying the location and specifications for
8 all fencing on site. All fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the
architectural aesthetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be suhmitted to,
9 and approved by,the Current P(anning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
10 12. The applicant shal( provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety
1 l �'�thout casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit
review. Pedestrian scale and down lighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe
12 pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been
approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in
13 RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
�q, 13.The applicant shall eliminate the proposed access restrictions along SE 172nd St in order
to provide full access along SE 172nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and
15 approved by,the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval.
16 14. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, all common facilities, including but not
limited to utilities, storm drainage, streets, recreation facilities,etc., sha(1 be completed by
17 the developer or, if deferred by the Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or
18 his/her designee, assured through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of
RMC 4-9-060.
�9 15.A{1 common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently maintained by the
20 planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or by the property owners'
association, or the agent(s)thereof. In the event that such facilities are not maintained in a
2� responsible manner, as determined by the City, the City shall have the right to provide for
the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or property owners' association accordingly.
22 Such bill, if unpaid, shali become a lien against each individual property.
23 16.The applicant shall create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to
communicate with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and
24 appropriate public entities about project information; road conditions in the work zone
25 area;and the safety and mobility effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on site
prior to construction commencement.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
23
`'"�'"` t �`` AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
1 17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private
2 open space standard of at least 15-feet in every dimension for all ground related units.
The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project
3 Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
4 18. The applicant shall provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private
open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet
5 for all upper story units. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by,
the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes
6 first.
� 19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security
device to the City in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping
8 sha11 be planted within one year of the date of final approval of the planned urban
9 development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to the release of the
security device. A security device for providing maintenance of landscaping may be
�� waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm licensed
to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A
11 copy of such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division.
12 20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural
elements, ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least
13 four and one-ha[f feet (4-1/2') wide. The revised elevations shaO be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
l4
21. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting
15 entrances and pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along SE
16 �72nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
1� approval. Staff is aware there may be topographic challenges with entrances along SE
172nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or demonstrate
18 separate entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval.
19 2z• The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include
a roof. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
2� Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
Z� 23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all
pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site
22 plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
23 building/engineering permit approval. If this condition of approval is met the proposal
would satisfy this standard.
24 24.The applicant shall provide detailed specifications for all site furniture,and art, in order to
25 ensure durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building
26 permit approval.
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
24
�' � "��"` AGENDA 1TEM #8. b)
1 25.The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather
2 protection for ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures,
contrasting materials, and/or special detailing along SE 172nd St. The revised elevations
3 shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
building permit approval whichever comes first.
4 26.The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current
5 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include
color and materials for the following: guardrails, fa�ade treatments, retaining walls,raised
6 planters, siding, windows/frames, and canopies. Acceptable materials include a
combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone,
� steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at the discretion
g of the Administrator.
9 27. The current left turn and right turn southbound lanes from Benson Road South to SR 515
shall be rechanneled by the applicant to one left turn lane and one combined left turn/right
10 turn lane and the applicant shall also modify the light signal at the Benson Road
South/SR 515 to accommodate the re-channelization.
ll
12
DATED this 24th day of May, 2016.
13
� �. ��' G.:a
.
14 , ___,.----'e-,—__,
_..�_._ _. . ._.,______....._
Phii A.Olhrcchts �
IS
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
16
t7
�g Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
19 �C 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the
20 Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision.
2� A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9}. A new fourteen (14) day
22 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall –
23 �cn floor, (425)430-6510.
24
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
25 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
26
PRELIMINARY PLANNED URBAN DEVELOPMENT-
25
�"'' �r #8, b)
DEPARTMENT OF COM;..�INITY ci r o
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Renton '�
A. REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
HEAR/NG DATE: May 10, 2016
Project Name: Avana Ridge PUD
Owners: Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
Contact: Justin Lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC; 9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98Q40
File Number: CUA15-000894, PP, PPUD
Project Manager: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and
Environmental (SEPAj Review for the construction of a multi-family development
containing 74 units. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential
Multi-Family(RM-F)zoning classification and the Residential Nigh Density(HD) land
use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-
family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The subject site
is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd 5 (108th Ave SE�,
and Benson Drive 5 (SR-515). The applicant is proposing one entrance off of SE
172"'St between the proposed buildings,and another entrance off of Benson Rd S.
There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east
to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the
stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally, the site contains Coal Mine
Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, refuse and recycle,
building height, parking, design, private open space, and retaining wal! standards.
The applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the
proposed PUD public benefit,along with the construction of enhanced open space,
pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and superior site and building design.
Siie Areo: 164,828 SF Total Building Area GSF:92,899 SF
Project Location: 17249 Benson Rd 5
� �..
.��
� ,�
;,�:.
� , ;,. �. �
Project Location Map
HEXSiaff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
`�"` AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
City of Renton Department of Co;, u�nrty&Economic Development � Hearing Examiner Recommendation
AVANA RIDGE PUD LlJA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 2 of 44
8. EXHIB/TS:
Exhibit 1: ERC Report,dated April 11,2016
Exhibit 2: Site Plan
Exhibit 3: Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4: Elevations
Exhibit 5: Grading Plan
Exhibit 6: Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21,2015)
Exhibit 7: Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated March 22,2004)
Exhibit 8: Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated January 20, 2009)
Exhibit 9: Drainage Report, prepared by D.R.Strong(dated December 28, 2015)
Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
Exhibit 10: 22, 2015)
Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(December
Exhibit 11: 2$, 2015)
Habitat Data Report, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December 22,
Exhibit 12: 2015)
Exhibit 13: Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc. (dated December 16, 2015)
Exhibit 14: Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15: Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2,2016)
Exhibit 16: Public Comment Letters/Emails
Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March 21,
Exhibit 17: 2016)
Response Memo-Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex(dated March
Exhibit 18: 26,2016)
Exhibit 19: Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner,dated May 3,2016
Exhibit 20: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures(dated April 11,2016)
Exhibit 21: CI 73—Residential Building Height
Exhibit 22: Elevation Perspectives
Exhibit 23: Transportation Concurrency
HEXStaff Report Avano Ridge PUD_LUAlS-000894
City of Renion Department of Com�ity&Economic Deve%pment y�#arin�r���u�/q��4���C�8. b J
AVANA RIDGE PUD � a` ���
Report of May 3,2016 Page 3 of 44
C. GEIYERAL/NFORMAT/ON:
Avana Ridge, LLC
1. Owner(s)of Record: 9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105
Mercer Island,WA 98040
2. Zoning Classification: Residential Multi-Family(RMF)
3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential High Density(HD)
4. Existing Site Use: Vacant
5. Neighborhood Characteristics:
a. North: Existing Single Family Residential(R-8 ZoneJ
b. East: Daycare(RMF ZoneJ
c. South: Vacpnt(RMFZoneJ
d. West: Multi-Fpmily, Public Storage, and a Dental Office(CA ZoneJ
6. Site Area: 164,827 SF(3.78 acres)
O. H/STORICAL/BACKGROUND:
Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date
Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015
Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015
Annexation N/A 5327 03/01/2008
Springbrook Ridge Apt PUD LUA09-024 N/A 09/24/2009
(Expired)
E. PUBLIC SERV/CES:
1. Existing Utilities
a. Water: Water service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
b. Sewer: Sewer service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
c. Surface/Storm Water: There is partial storm water conveyance systems along Benson Drive S,
Benson Rd S,and SE 172nd St.
2. Streets: There are partial street improvements along Benson Drive S, Benson Rd S,and SE 172"d St.
3. Fire Protection:City of Renton Fire Department
F. APPL/CABLE SECT/ONS OF THE RfNTON MUNICIPAL CODE:
1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts
a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts
b. Section 4-2-070:Zoning Use Table
c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards
2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Comr�ty&Economic Deve%pment �rinauufL���89�,��,EC�8• b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD � ��i
Report of May 3,2016 Page 4 of 44
a. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations
3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards
4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards
a. Section 4-6-060:Street Standards
5. Chapter 9 Permits—Specific
a. Section 4-9-150: Planned Urban Development Regulations
6. Chapter li Definitions
G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. Land Use Element
H. F/ND/NGS OF FACT(FOfJ:
1. The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development (PPUD) and Environmental
(SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units, in two four-story
structures.
2. The subject site is currently vacant.
3. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a
density of 20.21 du/ac. The proposed 74 units would be comprised of(28) 1-bedroom units, (29) 2-
bedroom units,and (17)3-bedroom units.
4. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on
December 30, 2015 and determined the appfication complete on lanuary 13, 2016. On February 15,
2016 the project was placed on hold pending receipt of an Independent Secondary Review of the
provided Traffic Study. The applicant submitted all necessary documentation and on March 30, 2016
and the project was taken off hold. The project complies with the 120-day review period.
5. The project site is located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Benson Drive S and Benson
Rd S. The site is triangularly shaped and consists of two separate tax parcels(Parcel#292305-9009 and
#292305-9148),totaling 164,828 square feet in area (3.78 acres).
6. The site is located within the Residential Multi-Family(RM-F) zoning classification, the Residential High
Density(HD)Comprehensive Plan land use designation,and Design District'B'.
7. Surrounding uses include: a daycare facility abutting the property to the east (zoned RM-F); existing
single family residences to the north (zoned R-8); southeast of the site, along 108th Ave SE, a vacant
parcel (zoned RM-F); and across Benson Drive 5, to the west, uses consists of multi-family, public
storage, and a dental office (zoned CA).
8. Access to the site is proposed via SE 172nd St, between the east and west buildings, and another
ingress/egress point via Benson Rd S. The two access points create a through road for emergency
vehicle ingress/egress across the property.
9. The proposal is served by a surface parking area to the south of the two structures, flanking the main
access drive. A total of 94 parking stalls would be provided in the surface parking area. An additional
20-parking stalls would be provided along the street.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Comr�ty&Economic Deve%pment �p�����7A35-0�����8• b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD + L 94, P , Cf
Report of May 3,2016 Page 5 of 44
10. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended),
on April 11, 2016, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -
Mitigated (DNS-M) for the Avana Ridge PUD project. The DNS-M included three mitigation measures
(Exhibit 20). A 14-day appeal period commenced on April 15, 2016, and ended on April 29, 2016. No
appeals of the threshold determination were filed.
11. Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,the Environmental Review Committee
(ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non-Significance—Mitigated:
a. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not
increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-
development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The
report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to
mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide
justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
engineering permit approval.
b. One (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both 106th
Ave SE and 104th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated
equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering
permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary
occupancy.
c. The applicant shall provide an off-site sidewalk,along the south side of SE 172nd St and the west
side of Benson Rd S, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be
consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site.ADA ramps shall also
be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is
required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE
172nd St and Benson Rd S. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to
City standards. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for
review and approval,and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy.
12. The tallest point of the structure would be approximately 46 feet and 5-inches from the average grade
plane to the highest peak of a shed roof element. The proposed building materials would be a
combination of concrete masonry, brick, metal canopy, cast-inplace concrete, fiber cement board, and
wood elements.All concrete walls are proposed to be treated with texturing and/or reveals.(Exhibit 4).
13. Requested Modifications from RMC through the PUD:When approving a PPUD,the City may modify
standards(RMC 4-2,4-4,4-7,and RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards,except as listed in RMC 4-9-1506.3).
All of the following modifications are required to be considered simultaneously as part of the planned
urban development:
RMC Code Citation Required Standard Requested Modification
RMC 4-2-110A Roof pitches are required to be equal This proposal includes a roof pitch
Development to or greater than 4:12 and may of 2:12
Standards for project an additional six (6) vertical
Commercial Zoning feet from the maximum wall plate
Designations- Roof height.
Pitch
RMC 4-2-110A A maximum building height of 3 The proposal includes a height of
Development stories with a wall plate height of 30 46-feet and 5-inches as measured
Stdndards for feet is permitted. from average grade plane to the
Commercial Zoning tallest point of the shed roof
HEX Staff Report Avona Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Com. ��#y& fconomic Development �$rincr�l�7A�5-0�8J4;PPiTD;EC�8• b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ��
Report of May 3,2016 Page 6 of 44
Designations- Roof elements.
Pitch
RMC 4-6-060F Street Various: See discussion in Table C: Various: See discussion under FOF
Standards PUD Criteria-Circulation xx: PUD Criteria -Circulation
RMC 4-3-100 Urban Various: See discussion in Table E: Various: See discussion under FOF
Design Standards Design District'D'Standards xx: Design District`B'Standards
RMC 4-4-080F, Based on the proposed use, a The applicant proposed a total of 94
Parking, Loading, and minimum and maximum of 96 parking spaces within surface parking areas.
Driveway Regulations spaces would be allowed in order to The proposal does not comply with
meet code. the minimum parking stall
requirements.
RMC 4-4-090, Refuse There shall be at least one deposit The proposal includes a single
and Recyclables area/collection point for every thirty refuse/recycle storage location
Standards (30)dwelling units. centrally located, between both
buildings at the center of the site.
RMC 4-4-040, Heights are limited to 48 inches for A section of the keystone-type wall
Retaining Wall Height retainingwalls located within front located near the monument sign at
yard/side yard along-a-street the Benson Road/Benson Drive
setbacks, and 72 inches for walls else intersection is proposed at a height
where on site. of 5.5 feet. A section of the
keystone-type wall located near the
monument sign at the Benson
Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5
feet and 6-inches tall.
RMC 4-9-150.E.2, Each residential unit in a PUD shall The current proposal provides
Private Open Space have usable private open space for the 4,156 SF of private, attached open
exclusive use of the occupants of that space through the use of private
unit in compliance with dimensional balconies for some of the units
standards. which does not comply with the
dimensional standards.
14. There are a total of 429 trees on site of which 46 trees are proposed to be retained outside of the
critical area and buffer.
15. An unnamed seasonal stream, characterized as Ns pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, bisects the northern and
southern portions of the site and runs east to west. The applicant is proposing buffer averaging and a
stream alteration pursuant to RMC 4-3-OS0. A Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study was
performed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc.on December 22,2015 (Exhibit 10).
16. A historic coal mine,known as the Springbrook mine,as well as its associated opening is also located on
the site near the south property line.The coal mine is designated as a High Coal Mine Hazard pursuant
to RMC 4-3-050. A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was performed by Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. on
March 22,2004 and January 20,2009(Exhibits 7 and 8).
17. Preliminary earthwork for the proposal includes 11,000 cubic yards of excavation and 3,250 yards of fill.
18. Construction is anticipated to commence in Summer of 2016 with substantial completion scheduled for
Summer of 2017.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�'ty&Economic Development ���n�����4rr�e��8, b�
AVANA l71DGE PUD � � �d
Report of May 3,2016 Page 7 of 44
19. Studies provided by the applicant include a stormwater report, traffic study, habitat assessment,
wetland and supplemental stream study, arborist report, geotechnical and a coal mine hazard report
(Exhibit 6-13, and 15).
20. Staff received several traffic related comments/concerns. Also included in the comments letters were
concerns related to:access,open space,street improvements, drainage,wildlife,density,and quality of
life (Exhibit 16). Non-SEPA concerns include, but are not limited to the following: zoning, permitted
uses, density, construction mitigation/traffic control, crime, landscaping, access, parking, retaining
walls,setbacks, utifities, public services,and home sizes. No agency comments were received.
21. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and
address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file,
and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report
and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report.
22. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Residential High Density (HD) on the City's
Comprehensive Plan Map. HD unit types are designed to incorporate features from both single-family
and multi-family developments, support cost-efficient housing, facilitate infill devefopment, have close
access to transit service, and efficiently use urban services and infrastructure. Lands designated HD is
where projects will be compatible with existing uses and where infrastructure is adequate to handle
impacts from higher density uses. The proposal is compliant with the following Comprehensive Plan
Goals and Policies if all conditions of approval are met:
Complience Comprehensive Plan Analysis
Policy L-2: Support compact urban development to improve health outcomes, support
►� transit use, maximize land use efficiency, and maximite public investment in
infrastructure and services.
Goal L-H: Plan for high-quality residential growth that supports transit by providing
� urban densities, promotes efficient land utilization, promotes good health and physical
activity, builds social connections, and creates stable neighborhoods by incorporating
both built amenities and natural features.
� Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new
development is designed to be functional and attractive.
� Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas
and neighborhoods through quality design and development.
Policy L-51: Respond to specific site conditions such as topography, natural features,
✓ and solar access to encourage energy savings and recognize the unique features of the
site through the design of subdivisions and new buildings.
Policy L-52: Include human-scale features such as pedestrian pathways, quality
� landscaping, and public spaces that have discernible edges, entries, and borders to
create a distinctive sense of place in neighborhoods,commercial areas,and centers.
� Policy L-53: Orient buildings in developments toward the street or a common area,
rather than toward parking lots.
Policy L-57: Complement the built environment with landscaping using native,
� naturalized, and ornamental plantings that are appropriate for the situation and
tircumstance and which provide for respite, recreation,and sun/shade.
HEX Staff Report Avona Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�;ity&Economic Development �aring�EXeu�1��r�qp4n��aµ8, b t
AVANA RIDGE PUD +. �`'� �!�I�� 'A��"���' �
Report of May 3,2016 Page 8 of 44
23. Zoning Development Standard Compliance: The RMF Zone provides suitable environments for multi-
family dwellings. It is further intended to conditionally allow uses that are compatible with and support
a multi-family environment.The RMF allows for the development of both infill parcels in existing multi-
family districts with compatible projects and other multi-family development. Densities range from ten
(10)to twenty(20)du/acre with opportunities for bonuses up to twenty five (25)dwelling units per net
acre. The proposal is comp�iant with the following development standards if all conditions of approval
are met:
Campliance RMF Zone Develop Standards and Analysis
Density: There is no minimum density requirement for townhouse development in
the RMF zone. The minimum density required for other attached dwelling units is 10
dwelling units per net acre. The maximum density permitted is 20 dwelling units per
net acre. Net density is calculated after the deduction of sensitive areas, areas
intended for public right-of-way,and private access easements.
'� Stoff Comment: After deducfing 1,237 square feet for access easements and 4,015
square feet for critica!areas,from the 164,8�7 gross square footoge of the site, the
net square footage would be 159,574 squore feet (3.66 net acres). The 74 unit
proposal would arrive at a net density of 20.21 dwelling units per ocre (74 units/3.66
acres = 20.21 du/acJ, which falls within the permitted density range for the RMF
zoning classification.
Lot Dimensions: There is no minimum lot size required in the RMF zone. A minimum
lot width of 25 feet is required (30 feet for corner lots)for townhouse development.A
'� minimum lot depth of 50 feet is required for townhouse development.
Stoff Commeni: The proposal does not include alterations to lot lines.
Lot Coverage:The allowed lot coverage is 35%. A maximum coverage of 45%may be
allowed through the Hearing Examiner site development plan review process.
✓
Staff Comment: The lot coverage for the entire development is at approximately
13.8%.
Setbacks:The required setbacks attached dwellings in the RMF zone are as follows:
front yard is 20 feet, the side yard is 0 feet for the attached sides and 5 feet for the
unattached sides (per CI-76), side yard along the street is 20 feet, and rear yard is 10
feet.
Staff Comment:The proposed buildings would have a front yard setback of 20 feet
and from the froni(SE 172"d St)property line which exceeds the maximum front yord
Compliant if setback. The proposed west-building would have a side yard along-a-srreet setback of
[onditions of 24 feet from che Benson Drive/SR 515 which exceeds the maximum side yard along-a-
,4pproval is streer setback. The side yard setback,from the eastern property line is 33 feet and 4-
n�et inches exceeding the 5 foot requirement. There is not a rear yard for the site given
street frontages surrounding the site.
The project is however proposed to be built across a portion of the common boundary
between existing property lines. Therefore,staff recommends as a condition of
approval ihe applicant be required to record formal Lot Combination or 8inding Site
Plan in order to ensure the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The
instrument shall be recorded prior to building permit approval.
Requested to Building Standards: The RMF zone has a maximum impervious surface coverage of
be Modified 75%.A Code Interpretation (CI-73) (Exhibit 21}was adopted regarding building height
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Deportment of Com�ity&Economic Deve/opment ;�aring�
AVANA RIDGE PUD , Ji���4�;���5, b�
Report of May 3,2016
Page 9 of 44
Through the requirements in residential zones. In the RMF zone, a maximum building height of 3
PUD stories with a wall plate height of 30 feet is permitted. Roofs with a pitch equal to or
greater than 4:12 may project an additional six (6) vertical feet from the maximum
wall plate height; common rooftop features, such as chimneys, may project an
additional four(4)vertical feet from the roof surface. Non-exempt vertical projections
(e.g., decks, railings, etc.) sha�l not extend above the maximum wall plate height
unless the projection is stepped back one-and-a-half (1.5) horizontal feet from each
fasade for each one (1)vertical foot above the maximum wall plate height. Reserved.
Wall plates supporting a roof with only one (1j sloping plane (e.g., shed roof) may
exceed the stated maximum if the average of wall plate heights is equal or less than
the maximum wall plate height allowed.
An additional ten feet(10')height for a residential dwelling structure may be obtained
through the provision of additional amenities such as additional recreation facilities,
underground parking, and additional landscaped open space areas; as determined
through the site development plan review pr�cess and depending on the
compatibility of the proposed buildings with adjacent or abutting existing residential
development. In no case shall the maximum wall plate height of a residential
structure exceed thirty-five feet(35').
Repuested to be modified throuah the PUD
Staff Commenc: The overa/l project has less impervious surface than otherwise would
be expected. Based on the provided TIR the site would contain approximafely 40.13�
impervrous surfaces for the overall site. This would include building oreas, associated
walkways, driveways,parking pnd drive aisles.
The tallest pornt of rhe structure would be approximately 46 feet and 5-inches from
average grade to the highest peak of the tallest shed roof element. The PUD seeks to
modify the minimum pitch from 4:12 to 2�12 as well as the maximum wal! plate
height. The requested modificption would still give the appeorance of pitched shed
roof from the pedestrian perspective (Exhibit 22J. The varied combinption of parapet
and roof slope, combined with cornice details ond t�ellis elements achieve a visually
interesting break in the roofline intended to be created with roof pitch requirement.
The proposed roof profiles effectively achieve the intenr of the code by breaking up the
massing and providing visual interest to the building rooflines. Additionally, the
proposed height serves to concentrate development in one area of the site preserving
opportunities fo�meaningful open space.
Therefore, staff is in support of the requested roof pitch and height modification, as
part of the PUD, if all conditions of approval are met.
Landscaping: The City's landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot
landscape strip along all public street frontages. Additional minimum planting strip
widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street
Compliontif development standards of RMC 4-6-060.
Conditions oj Staff Comment: Ti►e applicant has proposed landscaping olong the frontages of the
ApprovaJ is site (Benson Drive S, Benson Rd 5, and SE 172"d StJ exceeding the 10 foot landscape
Met requirement. The applicant has olso ihoughtfully incorporated landscaping
fhroughou[ihe site in order to create active and passrve recreation opporiuniiies as
we!l as to separate porking ond drive aisles into smpller areas.
A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the project application (Exhibit 3J.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�y&Economic Deve/opment �rinaE�a�/����Ay��8. b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ���L��3�-'b a, Pfii'��cF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 10 of 44
The landscape plan includes a planting plan which contains several different tree and
shrub species but does not provide specific detail for the number or types of trees and
shrubbery. Therefore sraff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicani be
required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to construction permit opproval complying with RMC 4-4-070.
See additional discussion below in FOF 26: PUD Decision Criteria,
Landscaping/Screening.
Tree Retention: The City's adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regufations
require the retention of 20 percent of trees in a residential development.
Significant trees shall be retained in the following priority order:
Priority One: Landmark trees; significant trees that form a continuous canopy;
significant trees on slopes greater than twenty percent (20%); Significant trees
adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and Significant trees over sixty
feet(60') in height or greater than eighteen inches( 18")caliper.
Priority Two: Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be
preserved; other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and Other
significant non-native trees.
Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have
been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained, unless the alders and/
or cottonwoods are used as part of an approved enhancement project within a
critical area or its buffer.
For multi-family development, the minimum tree density is four (4) significant trees
for every five thousand (5,000) square feet. The tree density may consist of existing
trees, replacement trees, trees required pursuant to RMC 4-4-070F1, Street Frontage
Compliant if Landscaping Required,or a combination.
Conditions of
Approvol is Staff Comment: The site is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by
�v►et Douglas fir, red cedar, big leaf maple, Scouler's willow, and black cottonwood. The
site's understory is dominated by Indian plum, haze/nut Nimilayan blockberry, sword
fern, and creeping blackberry. The applicant provided a Tree Protection Plan/Arborisr
Report, completed by Greenforest Inc., dated December 16, 2015 (Exhibit 13J. eased
on the provided tree inventory, 429 trees are located on the subject srte. There are
114 trees located in critica!areas and associated buffers; 67 trees were idenrified as
dead, diseased, or danqerous; and 37 trees would be located within proposed rights-
of-way. This results in the exdusion of 218 trees from retention calculations. As such,
211 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 20% of the significant
trees located on the site.
Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 4� trees on site. The
provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 46 trees outside of the critical
areas and iheir associaced buffers which serves to meet tree retentian requirements
(Exhibit 13J.
Additionally, the project site is approximately 165,000 SF square feet. As a result, a
rotal of 132 trees are required to be located on the site in order to meet the tree
density requirements of the code (165,OOa square feet/5,000 square feet x 4 trees=
132 treesJ. The applicant's proposed landscape plan indudes the planting of several
trees, in addition to the 46 trees proposed for retention, but does not provide specific
detail for the number or types of trees. Therefore,staff recommends as a condition of
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD [UA15-000894
City of Renton Departmeni of Com�ity& Economic Development �pr����I�������°�8. b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD �(Y
� L ' s-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3,2016 Page il of 44
approvpl, the applicant be required to submit a detailed/andscape plan depicting at
least 132, two-inch caliper, trees(or the gross equivalent inchesJ on site;not including
the those trees located within the Notive Growth Protection Easement. The detailed
landscape plan shal!be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval.
Parking: The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require a specific number of off-
street parking stalls be provided based on number of bedrooms proposed per unit.
Reauested to be modified throuah the PUD
5[aff Comment: The following ratios would be applicable to the site:
Use �1�residential units Ratio Required S aces
Attached 28—1 bedrooms I.O spaces/1-bedroom 2g
Residential 29_2 bedrooms 1.4 spaces/2-bedroom 41
Units
17—3 bedrooms 1.6 spoces/3-bedroom 27
Based on the proposed uses, o minimum and maximum of 96 pa�king spaces would be
requrred in order to meet code. The applicont is proposing a total of 94 spaces within
structured and surface porking areas. The proposal does not comply with the
minimum requirements by two stalls. The applicant is proposing to modify the
Requested to minimum parking requirements through the PUD.
be Modified
rhrough the While the proposal does not meet the minimum number of parkinq stal/s required by
PUD code the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the parking
regulations by praviding sufficieni on-site parking for the amount necessary for the
new development. The applicani is requestinq a very small reduction, of less than 3%.
Additionally, the proposal includes 20 public stalls provided along SE 172"d St which
would serve as overflow parking for the proposal. Therefore,staff is in support of the
requested modification, as part of the PUD, if all conditions of approva!are met.
The parking conforms to the minimum requirements for drive aisle, porking stall,
dimensions and the provision of ADA accessible parking stal/s.
Per RMC 4-4-OSOF.11 the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be one-half (0.5)
bicycle parkinq space per dwelling unit for a total of 37 bicycle parking stalls. The
applicant is proposing 21 bicycle parking spaces within o bike room in the Wesc
building. An additional 10 bicyde parking spaces would be provided within a bike
room in the East building,for a total of 41 spaces. The applicant will be required to
demonstrate spaces meet the requiremen[s of RMC 4-4-080F.11.c as part of building
permit applications.
Refuse and Recyclables: Per RMC 4-4-090 for multi-family developments a minimum
of 1 % square feet per dwelling unit is required for recyclable deposit areas and a
minimum of 3 square feet per dwelling unit is required for refuse deposit areas.
Requested ro There shall be at least one deposit area/collection point for every thirty(30) dwelling
be Modified units.
Through the Staff Comment:Based on the proposal for o total 74 residentral units, 333 square feet
PUD of refuse and recycle area us required to be dedicated. The praposal includes a 436
square foot area dedicated to refuse and recyde which complies wirh the orea
dedication requirements.
Throuqh the PUD the applicant is requesiing p modification in order to provide a
HEKStoff Report Avano Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com.y�ty&Economic Deve/apment �arin�F/����Ain�l�o,�8, b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD �U 15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 12 of 44
combined refuse/recycle enclosure. The refuse/recyde storage location would be
centrally located between both buildrngs at the center of the site, away from pubfic
view. To reduce architectura! bulk and scale the two separately-required storage
locotions have been proposed in one enclosure. A single enclosure would provide ease
of access to resrdents of both buildings in addition to allowing for one, easily-
accessible, pickup point for waste management services. Therefore, staff is in support
of the requested modification, as part of the PUD, if p!1 conditions of approval ore
met.
See additional discussron below in fOF 29: Design District Revrew, Service Element
Design and Location.
Fences and Retaining Walls: In any residential district, the maximum height of any
fence, hedge or retaining wall shall be seventy two inches (72"). Except in the front
yard and side yard along a street setback where the fence shall not exceed forty eight
inches(48") in height.
There shall be a minimum three-foot (3') landscaped setback at the base of retaining
walls abutting public rights-of-way.
Reauested to be modified throuai►the PUD.
Staff Comment: The site can best be characterized as hilly generally sloping south
toward the stream on site and eenson Drive 5. Slopes on-site range from 8 to 15%
with a topographic relief of approximately 35 feet. The steepest slope on the site is
approximately 20�in the proximity of the stream on site. The proposal complies with
the retoining wall height requirements of the code with the exceptions of two areas
on site.
A section of the keystone-type wall proposed near the monumeni sign ot the eenson
Road/Benson Drive intersection is 5 feet and 6-inches tall. This wall would face the
srreet. Imposing the 4 foot maximum heighc would require a 4 foot wide terrace and
Requested to add 105 linear feet of a 1.0- to 1.5 foot tall wall. The woll would also require removal
be Modi�ed of three odditional trees.
Through the
PUD pdditiona/ly, a section of the keystone-type wall proposed along the east side of the
east building reaches 6 feet and 6-inches tall, exceeding ihe 6 foot maximum. This
wall would face the proposed building. The excess height is preferable to a terraced
configuration becouse it provides a contiguous landscape buffer. The wal! could be
limited to 6 feet by sreepening the grade of the landscape buffer. However, this was
not pursued in an effort to minimize visual impacts to the adjacent day care focility
rhrough the use of londscaping.
The requested mod+fications to the retaining wall height requirements ore minimal in
both cases and strict compliance would create impacts such as the removal of existing
vegeiation or rhe interruption of landscape buffer. However, given the location of the
wolls are adjacent to, or in many cases wiihin, rights-of-way the proposal would very
much benefit from landscaping between the sidewalk and proposed retaining walls in
order to provide visual relief. The code requires a minimum three foot landscaped
setback at the base of retaining walls abutting public rights-of-way. Therefore staff
recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a revised landscaping
plan depicting a minimum three foot landscaped setback from the sidewalk at the
base of retarning walls abutting, or wiihin, public rights-of-way. Landscaping shaN
indude a mixture of shrubs and groundcover(trees are optionalJ in conformonce with
the standards of RMC 4-4-O70H4, Perimeter Parkrng Lot Landscaping. The revised
HEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Com� ify&Economic Deve%pment orin ��3������
AVANA R/DGE PUD � � � �I 8, bJ
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 13 of 44
landscaping plan sholl be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager priar to engineering permit approval.
Staff is in support of the requested modification for the retaininq woll height, as part
of the PUD, if all conditions of approval are complied with including the provision of
landscaping between the sidewalk and the retaining wall.
24. Critical Areas: Project sites which contain critical areas are required to comply with the Critica! Areas
Regulations (RMC 4-3-050). The proposal is consistent with the Critical Areas Regulations, if all
conditions of approval are complied with:
Geologically Hazardous Areas:
Stoff Comment:A coal mine was operated historically wirhin the southern portion of
the site, along the southwesterly property line. According to the Coal Mine Hazard
Study,prepared by lcicle Creek Engineers on January 26, 2009, the coal mine is
designated a High Coal Mine Hazard(CHJ ps defined by RMC 4-3-050(Exhibit 8J. The
classification was affirmed by Earth Solutions NW in the provided Geotechnical Report
(Exhibit 6J.
High Coa!Mine Hazards are considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed
mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in
depth for steeply dipping seams, o�shallower than 15 times the thickness of the seam
or workings far gently dipping seams. These areas may be affecred by collapse or
other subsidence. The main entry and airshaft for the Springbrook mine is also
Compliant if located on site. Icicle Creek Engineers encountered approximately 15 feet of fill at
condition of whai appears to be the mine entry, estimated to be 5 to 8 feer in diameter, and
pPP�OVQ115 inclrned at approximately 55 to 60 degrees to the souih(Exhibit SJ.
met
Several recommendations to mirigate potential risk of the coal mine hatard/former
entry were included in the Icicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the
fil!at the mine entry ond backfilling with controlled density fill(Exhibrt 8). However,
these recommendations were based on a former development proposal which
included strucrures in the southern portion of ihe siie. The proposed developmeni is
setback approximptely 125 feet from the coal mine hazard and woufd likely not have
the same impacts as the former development. However, there ore some grading
activities and smaller recreational improvements in the proximity of the coal mine
haza�d which may potentially be affected by mining related subsidence.
A mitigation measure was issued requi�ing on updated Coal Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposa!would not increase the threat of the qeologica!hazard to
adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions and the
development can be safely accommodated on the site(Exhibit 20).
Streams:
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study,
prepared by Ed Sewell Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibir 10J. The
report states there are no wetlands located on site. An unnamed seasonal streom
(Stream AJ has been idenrified on the subject sire. Stream A bisects the northern and
southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3-
OSO.G the stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent
flow and lack of fish use. Class IVs streams have a standprd buffer of 50 feet as
measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWMJ ps well as a 15 foot setback
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD CUA35-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ty&Economic Development �ariny� ' 8. b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ( f������
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 14 of 44
from the edge of the buffer io any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer
averaging for portions of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing
an alteration within the stream and its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. !t
should be noted that the Hobitat eiologist for WDFW concluded the on-site srream is
not a jurisdictional water, or a "water of the state". As a result no Hydraulic Permit
Approval(HPAJ permit is required from Washington Department of Fish& Wildlife.
Stream Buffer Avera4in4 Proposal:
RMC 4-3-050.1.1 allows for critical area buffers to be reduced to no less than a 25 foot
minimum for Type Ns streams. Ti►e applicant has proposed buffer averaging, with
reductions of the buffer down to 25 feet, for Stream A. Overall the applicant is
proposing buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,835 square feet to be
mitigated wich buffer additions in the amount of approximately 9,527 square feet.
The applicant is also proposing buffer enhancement for those portions of the buffer
which would be reduced. Pursuant to RMC, buffer width averaging may be allowed by
the reviewing officia!only where the applicant demonstrates al(of the following:
i. There are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and
associaied riparian area;and
ii. euffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian
ecoloqical function;and
iii. The tota! area contained within the buffer afte� averaging is no less than
that contained within the required standard buffer width prior to averaging;
and
iv. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available
science as described in WAC365-195-905;and
v. Where the buffer wrdih is reduced by averaging pursuant to this subsection,
buffer enhancement shall be required.
The existing stream buffer, which separates the north apprtment building area from
the southern open space, is mostly existing forest (primarily Alder and CottonwoodJ
wirh an understory dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry. The buffer would be
enhanced through the removal of the invasive blackberries and other undesirable
vegetation and replaced with native understory vegetation. There are existing road
improvements within the buffer on both the east and west sides of the stream. The
applicant's Supplemental Stream Study concluded the buffer reduction, throuqh
averaging, wauld have the physical characteristics that can protect water quality and
functions of the stream on site(Exhibit 10).
Stoff has reviewed the stream buffer averaging proposal for Stream A, and agrees
that the proposal meets oll requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.1. However, the
provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance with criteria
found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable io verify ti►at through the
enhancement of the buffer and the use of!ow impact development strategies the
reduced buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer. While staff
believes the proposal for a reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of
the stream, this could not be affirmed. As a result staff is recommending a condition
of approva!requiring the applicant submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses
the criteria found in RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't
negatively impact the function of the stream. The revised mrtigation plan shall be
submiited to, and opproved by, the Current Plonning Project Manaqer prior to
engineering permit approval.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
City of Renton Deportment of Com,�ity&Economic Development ;�orin �j ��Q� �r�
AVANA R/DGE PUD � �1�3�2���DD894�;�1°P(TO;FCF 8• b�
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 15 of 44
Stream Alterotion ProposaL•
RMC 4-3-050.1.2.p allows for the construction of non-vehiculpr transportation
crossings. The applicant has proposed o pedestrian bridge trail crossing over Stream
A. Pursuant to RMC, crossings may be permitted by the reviewing official only where
the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
i. The proposed roufe is determined to have the least impact on the
environment, while meeting City Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060:and
ii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and
gravel;pnd
iii. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water
body; pnd
iv. Crossings occur as near to perpendiculpr with the water body as possi6le;
and
v. Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife Fish Water Crossing Design Guidelines, 2013, and ti►e National
Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid Passage at St�eam
Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivaleni manuals as determined
by the Administrator;and
vi. Seasonal work windows are determined and made p condition of appraval;
and
vii. Mitigation criteria of subsection L of this Section are met.
The proposed path would connect the north and south sides of the buffer, crossing
over Stream A, via a pedestrian bridge. The bridge would also serve to connect the
proposed structures to the proposed open space on the southern portion of the site.
Ti►e bridged trai! crossing would be located within a narrow portion of the stream,
above the flow pprh of water, and would be perpendicular to the water body.
Staff has reviewed the alteration proposa!for the bridge across Streom A, and pgrees
that the proposa! meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.2. However, the
provided stream study does not include a demonstration of compliance winc �riteria
found in RMC 4-3-OSO.H.2. While staff believes the proposed bridged crossing
wouldn't negafively impact fhe function of the stream,staff was unable to verify. As a
result staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the applicant submit a
revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2
demonstrating the bridged crossing wauldn't negptively impact the function of ihe
stream. The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and opproved by, the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
Finally, in order to preserve and protect the stream and its associated buffer staff also
recommends the applicant establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that
part of the site encompassing the stream pnd buffer area and ploce split rail fencing
and signoge along the outer edge of the buffer. The Fina! Miiiqation plan shall
include all specifications for fencing and signage ond shall be submitted to, and
approved by, [he Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit
approval.
25. PUD Applicability Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-1506, any applicant seeking to permit development
which is not limited by the strict application of the City's zoning, parking, street, and subdivision
regulations in a comprehensive manner shall be subject to applicability standards. The following table
MEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�;ity&Economic Development +�orin��������#8, b�
AVANA RIDGE Pl/D ' 0 4, P D,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 16 of 44
contains project elements intended to comply with applicability standards, as outlined in RMC 4-9-
150B:
Compliance PUD Applicability Criteria and Analysis
In approving a planned urban development,the City may modify any of the standards
Compliantif of RMC 4-2, RMC 4-3-100, RMC 4-4, RMC 4-6-060, and RMC 4-7. All modifications
Conditions of shall be considered simultaneously as part of the planned urban development.
Approva/Are Staff Comment:All standards requested to be modified are confained within the code
Met sections listed above with the exception of the Private Open Space modificafion. See
discussion under FOF28:PUD Development Standards, Private Open Space.
An applicant may request additional modifications from the requirernents of the
Renton Municipal Code. Approval for modifications other than those specifically
Complionrif described in subsection RMC 4-9-1506.2.a shall be approved prior to submittal of a
Conditions of preliminary planned urban development plan.
Approvo!are
Met Staff Comment: Al/ requested modifications are out(ined above under Finding 13.
Staff is in support of all requested modificarions, with the exception of the private
open space request,if all condiiions of approval are complied with.
A planned urban development may not authorize uses that are inconsistent with
those uses allowed by the underlying zone, or overlay district, or other location
,i restriction in RMC Title 4, including, but not limited to: RMC 4-2-010 to 4-2-080, 4-3-
010 to 4-3-040,4-3-090,4-3-095,and 4-4-010.
Staff Comment:Attached residentiat units are a permitted use in the RMFzone.
The number of dwelling units shall not exceed the density allowances of the
applicable base or overlay zone or bonus criteria in chapter 4-2 or 4-9 RMC; however,
averaging density across a site with multiple zoning classifications may be allowed if
'� approved by the Community and Economic Development Administrator.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with the density requirements of the zone. See
discussion in FOF 23:Zoning Development Standard Compliance.
26. PUD Decision Criteria Analysis: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-150D, each planned urban development shall
demonstrate compliance with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria. The following table
contains project elements intended to comply with the Planned Urban Development decision criteria,
as outlined in RMC 4-9-150D:
Compliance ' PUD Decision Crite�ia and Analysis
Demonstration of Comp�iance and Superiority Required: Applicants must
demonstrate that a proposed development is in compliance with the purposes of this
Section and with the Comprehensive Plan, that the proposed development will be
superior to that which would result without a planned urban development, and that
the development will not be unduly detrimental to surrounding properties.
'� Staff Comment: If the conditions of approval are met, the applicant will have
demonstrated complionce wiih the PUD regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. The
applicont will have demonstrated that the development is superior to rhat which
would result without a PUD and requested modifications will not be detrimental to
surrounding properties. The development of this site as a PUD results in a superior
design than what would result by the strict application of the Developmenr Standards
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Deportment of Co�1ty&Economic Development �orin ���35-����
AVANA R/DGE PUD � 4 )
A�#8. b
0 4, P D,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 17 of 44
for the following reasons: natura! features, overall design, and building and site
design. The proposed design provides for the reiention of the natural grade on site,
significant trees and a noteworthy amount of landscaping and re-vegetation.
Additionally, the plan provides for both active and possive recreation spaces
significantly beyond the standard code requirements. The proposed desiqn can
provide for the aforementioned amenities because of the modifications requested in
FOF 13:Requested Modifications from RMC above.
The site is designated Residentipl High Density(HDJ on the Comp�ehensive Plan Land
Use Map. See Comprehensive Plan analysis under fOF 22: Comprehensive Plan
Analysis.
Public Benefit Required: Applicants shail demonstrate that a proposed development will provide
specifically identified benefits that clearly outweigh any adverse impacts or undesirable effects of the
proposed planned urban development, particularly those adverse and undesirable impacts to
surrounding properties,and that the proposed development will provide one or more of the following
benefits than would result from the development of the subject site without the proposed planned
urban development:
a. Critical Areas: Protects critical areas that would not be protected otherwise to the
N�A same degree as without a planned urban development.
b. Natural Features: Preserves, enhances, or rehabilitates natural features of the
subject property, such as significant woodlands, native vegetation, topography,
or noncritical area wildlife habitats, not otherwise required by other City
regulations.
Staff Comment: The primary natural features of the property include retention of 114
existing trees in the critical prea, in addition to the 46 irees proposed for retention
outside the critical area. The number of trees proposed for retention results in minimol
adverse disturbance to existing vegetation, minimize surface wpter and groundwater
runoff, aid in the stabilization of soils, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and
minimize the need for additional storm drainage facilities coused by ihe destabilization
Complianr if of soils. Additionally, the duster of trees proposed for retention would serve to abate
Condition oJ noise,provide wind protection, and reduce air pollution.
AppMet 11S F�nally, the large /andscaped community open space provided at the southern portion
of the site totaling 19,795 square feet and the 49,918 square feet of critical area and
associafed buffer would remain in a veqetativ%pen space stote providinq a
sanctuary for the animals that reside rn the area.
The trees proposed for retention may be impacted after rnitial dearinq,final grading,
due to chanqing site conditions. Therefore staff recommends, as a condicion of
approval, the applicpnt be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project
Manager, tree retention inspection/monitorinq reports after initial clearing, final
grading, and annually for two years by o qualified professional forester. The
inspection/monitoring reports shall identify pny retained trees thpt develop problems
due to changing siie conditions and prescribe mitigation.
c. Public Facitities: Provides public facilities that could not be required by the City for
N�A development of the subject property without a planned urban development.
d. Use of Sustainable Development Techniques: Design which results in a
�y�q sustainable development; such as LEED certification, energy efficiency, use of
a�ternative energy resources, low impact development techniques,etc.
HEX Staff Report Avana Rrdge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ty&Economic Development �arin � �
AVANA RIDGf PUD ' ����4�;�CF�• �
Report of May 3,2016 Page 18 of 44
e. Overall Design: Provides a planned urban development design that is superior to
the design that would result from development of the subject property without a
planned urban development.A superior design may include the following:
i.Oqen Space/Recreation:
(a) Provides increased open space or recreational facilities beyond standard code
requirements and considered equivalent to features that would offset park mitigation
fees in Resolution 3082; and
(b1 Provides a quality environment through either passive or active recreation facilities
and attractive common areas, including accessibility to buildings from parking areas
and public walkways;or
Staff Commeni: The applicant has provrded a variety of recreation opportunities and
open spaces throughout the development. Without fhe use of the proposed PUD the
applicant has indicated that the proposal would have likely eliminoted the opportunity
for a concentrored recreation space.
The applicant is proposing the consiruction of a large londscaped community open
space at the southern portion of the site. The community open space incorporates
active and passive space, with a central connecting sidewalk linking the spoce to the
public right-of-way. A central path and complementing pedest�ion bridge crossing
would be constructed to create an access point to the community open space from the
surface parking lot. The large area would be ample usable space for passive recreation
and special events such as picnics,parties, weddings,movie night in the park,concerts,
Compliant if etc;. promoting community involvement. Additionally, the space would take
Conditions of advantage of and display the attractive territorial views to the West. Finally, the spoce
Approva/are �,ould serve to preserve and enhance existinq vegetation and natural character
Met through tree preservation, removal of extensive invasive elackberries, and
replacement with native understory vegetation to be maintained through the life of
the development.
The space feaiures a large, central, gently sloping lawn for cosual seating and
recreation. The lawn is oriented to s/ope down towards an open pavilion whose
intended use includes performances, and community gatherings. The pavilion is also
sited io capture and frame the attractive territorial views[o the West.
A smal!fenced off-leash dog run is provided ot the east side of the site between the
buffer and the parking lot among a grove of existing trees to be preserved. The dog
run would be a pervious wood-chip surface.
The applicant has indicated that there is an opportunity to indude interpretive
signage/informarion regardinq differentiating elements (trees, londscaping, drainage,
orchiiecture,etc.J of the proposed development at o strategic place(sJ on site. The use
of interpretive signage would result in an increase in public benefit for the overall
project. Therefore, staff recommends as a condition of approval the applicont provide
interpretive siqnage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees,
landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.J of the proposed development at a strategic
ploce(sJ on site. The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and
approved by, the Current Planning Project Manaqer prior to building permit/Fina!Plat
approval whichever comes first.
The resident amenity lounge located on level i of the West building cakes advantage
of outdoor space and integrates an outdoor plaza intended for gathering spaces,
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_CUA25-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�jty&Economic Development arin ���rn�j►�8, b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD { + � /� a'ad bb��
Report of May 3,2016 Page 19 of 44
barbecues, and lounge areas for a variety of opportunities for the residents. The area
opens up the western portion of the site and provides a softer building edge and brings
visual interest to what would norma!ly be considered the "side" elevation of the
project.
ii. Circulation/Screenin�: Provides superior circulation patterns or location or
screening of parking facilities;or
Staff Comment: The proposal includes throuqh access resulting rn a superior circularion
pattern to thot of two separate entrances into the site which do not connect. In
addition to through vehicular access the applicant is proposing to provide srreet
improvements along SE 172nd St,Benson Road S, and portions of Benson Drive S.
The project would provide sufficient vehicle access for the proposed development and
the proposed pubfic and privare streets coufd accommodate emergency vehicles and
rhe traffic demand created by the development if a!l conditions of approvol are
complied with.
A!I surface parking preas are internal to the project and are pulled away from
neighboring properties. Where grodes are steep, landscaping is proposed to screen
surfoce parking as much as possible from pedestrian paths along the perimeter of the
development.
lnternal to the site, pedestrian pathwoys continue throughoui the development along
the internal courtyard and through the open space oreas. The site design promotes
social interaction and would promore a leve!of safety achievable through the use of a
PUD. If all conditions of approval are complied with, the pedestrian circulation system
throughout the development would be well designed, would encourage walkability
throughout the neiqhborhood, and pofentially reduce the vehicular traffic ond impacts
on the neighboring community.
iii. Landstaain�/Screenin�: Provides superior landscaping, buffering, or screening in or
around the proposed planned urban development;or
Staff Commeni: Conceptually, the proposed landscape plan for ihe entire site is
superior to what would be required by Renton's Municipal Code (Exhibit 3J.
Thematically the proposed londscaping weaves in a consistent theme throughout the
development and ties all proposed open spaces together. The proposed landscape
plan includes diverse candidate planting list: vine maple, coral bark Jopanese maple,
katsura, Autumn hrilliance serviceberry, dogwood, Washington hawthorn, flowe�ing
crabapple, sargent cherry, lapanese snowbe!l, Alaska ye1/ow cedar, cypress, pine,fir,
Western cedar,and mountain hemlock trees. The proposed shrub plonting list indudes
more ihan thirty shrub options. The applicant would be reguired to provide a detailed
londscpping plan prior to engrneering permit app�oval with specific plant details.
The building and parkinq lot landscaping has been designed to meet severa!objectives
including: reducfions in the overpll sca/e of the building; breaking up of larqe a�eas of
parking !ot pavement with interior and perimeter landscaping; perimeter landscape
buffer and screening; help define circulation routes and frame or enhance views;
provide environmental benefits such as shade, improved air quality, natural
stormwater treatment, and wild(ife habitat.
Underground sprinkler systems are required to be instolled pnd mointained for all
landscaped areas. The sprinkler system is required to provide ful/ water coverage of
the planted areas specified on ihe plan.
NFXStaff Report Avana Rrdge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com��ty&Economic Development �tarinq����,��uy�8. b J
AVANARIDGEPUD ` �� �`' ��b'��
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 20 of 44
Details for potential fencing were not provided with the application. Therefore, a
detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for
all fencing on site. All fencing shall be made of qualiry materials in keeping with the
architectural aesrhetic of the proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted
to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to buifding permit
approval.
iv. Site and Buildin� Design: Provides superior architectural design, placement,
relationship or orientation of structures,or use of solar energy;or
Staff Comment: The placement of the buildings on site would allow for natural lighting
opportunities, and is respectful of the neiqhboring residential-scaled neighboring
properties through the use of modestly-sloped roof forms and adherence to building
setback and landscape requirements.
The building plocement allows the majority of the surface parking to be screened from
public rights-of-way and works together with the on-site landscaping to keep interna!
service elements screened.
Ti►e architectural design of the proposed residential building complements the
character of the surrounding community through the use of residential/y-scaled
windows,frequeni modulation of the facades, and pedestrian friendly access points,
signage, and proposed plantings.
The placement of the buildings along SE 172nd Sr allows buffers and additiona!distance
from ihe other two rights-of-way (Benson Rd S and Benson Drive SJ along the
perimeters of the development. The buildings also serve to screen the parking from the
residentio!properties to the North, and are pulled away from the neighboring day core
property to the East.
The applicant has reduced the scale of the development with ihe use of two structures
as opposed to the consolidation of units into one structure. The two structures also
serve to reduce congestion on the site ond allow for multiple views as well as
modulated facodes compared to one continuous structure.
All visible building materials would follow a cohesive color scheme. A variety of
maierials and colors are being proposed as part of the color palette for the building
design aesthetic. Materials would have a varieTy of patterns and textures including
panel configuration, horizontal board configuration and reveal patterns consistent
with window placement and proportion. The material palette includes concrete
masonry, brick, meial canopy, cast-in place concrete, fiber cement board, and wood
elemenrs. A!I concrete walls will be treated with texturing and/or reveals. Artwork is
also proposed throughout the community open space and at specific building fa�ade
locations.
However, opportunities exist to enhance the building desiqn in order to provide a
superiar presence along SE 172nd St.As such, staff recommends a condition of approvaJ
requiring the provision of additional ground level details(see discussion under FOF 29:
Design District Review, Ground Level DetailsJ.
Building and Site Design:
Compliont if
Condition of i. Perimeter: Size, scale, mass, character and architectural design along #he planned
Approval is urban development perimeter provide a suitable transition to adjacent or abutting
Mer lower density/intensity zones. Materials shall reduce the potential for light and glare.
HEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
City of Renton Deportment of Corr�;,ity&Economic Development ariny� 1
AVANA R/DC'iE PUD s `'� Ey��/�����8, �j j
�v��� vuutf9
Report of May 3,2016 Page 21 of 44
Staff Comment:
The proposal includes ample buffers berween the proposed srructures and p�operty
lines through the use of additiona!setbacks from code minimums. Specifically, plong
the eastern property line the increases in setbacks allow for natural doylighting
opportunities for the daycare. Additionally, landscape buffers would provide a soft
t�onsition between building and daycare.
On the south perimeter, the buildings are ser back siqnificantly from a/I property lines,
and allow the park amenity to be unobstructed in its day lighting opportunities. Due to
the locotion of the buildings to the north of the open space, no shadows from the
proposed buildings would be cast at any time of year or day. On the West perimeter,
the buildinq would have minimal impact to views across the site, as both buildings are
oriented North/South.
On the North perimeter, the adjacent residential dwellings would be screened from the
surface parking lot through the use of landscape buffers, building modulation and new
proposed street trees. The conceptual landscape plan demonstrates the frequency,
type and number of the street trees and interior plantings proposed. These techniques
would successfully serve io mitigate the length of rhe two buildings and reduce impact
to existing neighboring properties if all conditions of approval are complied with.
Compliance with all recommended conditions of approval would provide a suitable
transition from the adjacent lower density single family residential uses to the more
intense commercial and multi family uses located to the South and West.
Landscoping pnd terracing has been incorporated alonq Benson Orive 5 in order to
detract attention from the parking area which mpy be visibfe from this point of view.
The new development is anticipoted to fit into fhe existing developed fabric of the
neighborhood. Staff will be recommending, as a condirion of approvpl, the applicant
provide a materipls board to the satisfoction of the Current Planning Projecr Manaqe�
(see discussion in FOF 29:Design District Review). The materials board would also be
used to confirm that siding materials are non-reflective which would reduce glare.
Each unit would have windows, which could slighrly reflect ligi►t from the building but
not to an extent beyond any typical multi family development.
The applicant has indicated that the proposal would not result in excessive glpre onto
adjacent properties, in ihe submirted design district compliance na�rative. However, o
lighting plon was not submitted with the application package, as such, staff
recommends a condirion of approval tirat requires the applicant to p�ovide a lighring
plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on
adjacent properties; o[ the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting sho/l be used in all cases to assure sofe pedest�ian ond vehicular
movement, unless alternptive pedestrian scale lighting hns been approved
administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-
075 Lighting, Exterior On-Sire.
ii. Interior Desi�n: Promotes a coordinated site and building design. Buildings in
groups should be related by coordinated materials and roof styles, but contrast should
be provided throughout a site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing,
building orientation or housing type;e.g.,single family,townhouses, flats, etc.
Staff Comment: The proposed buildings oppear to have been designed to be built in a
coordinated fdshion, ufilizing p consistent set of materials. Differentiaiion throughout
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Departmeni of Com�y&Econamic Developmeni �rin��,�/��rr��1��8, b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD r L id3's`b 0 94,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 22 of 44
the design is provided with the use of different materials and cofors.
The interior design of both buildings has been integraied with the overoll site design.
The primary orientation of the units are to the North and South to toke advantage of
daylighting opportunities. Where the buildrngs meet East/West site borders, dwelfing
units have been rotated to face easterly and westerly. The intent of tf�is interior design
technique is to provide visually pleasing elements on all foursides of the building.
Through the use of roofs sloped at 2:12, rather than 4:12, the sloped roof portions of
the building reduce the shadow cast on the residential properties to the north. Building
modulation at regular intervals and a vast variety of wrndow sizes and styles also helps
to break up the scale of the buildings.
As mentioned obove staff wi/l be recommending, as a condition of approval, the
opplicant provide a materials board to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project
Manager (see discussion in FOF 29: Design District ReviewJ. The materials board
would also be used to confirm the use of varied materials and architectura!detailing
for the proposal. Additiona/ly, staff will be recommending a condition of approval
requiring added architectural detailing etements including lighting fixtures, contrasting
materials, or special detailing along rhe facades orienred to a street(see discussion in
FOF 29:Design District Review, Ground Leve!DetailsJ.
Circulation:
i. Provides sufficient streets and pedestrian facilities.The planned urban development
shall have sufficient pedestrian and vehicle access commensurate with the location,
size and density of the proposed development. All public and private streets shall
accommodate emergency vehicle access and the traffic demand created by the
development as documented in a traffic and circulation report approved by the City.
Vehicle access shal� not be unduly detrimental to adjacent areas.
ii. Promotes safety through sufficient sight distance, separation of vehicles from
pedestrians, limited driveways on busy streets,avoidance of difficult turning patterns,
and minimization of steep gradients.
iii. Provision of a system of walkways which tie residential areas to recreational areas,
transit, public walkways, schools,and commercial activities.
Requesied to
be Modified iv. Provides safe, efficient access for emergency vehicles.
Through the Requested to be modified throuah the PUD.
PUD
Staff Comment: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impacr Analysis prepared by TraffEx,
dated February 2, 2016(Exhibit 15). The provided TIA was found to meet the intent of
the TlA guidelines and is generally acceptable for preliminary review. Severa! traffic
related comments letters/emails have been received by the public. The comments
raise concerns regarding the use of the proposed SE 172"d St entrance and potentia!
impacis to the neighboring single family residential development to the north as well
as additional impacts to queueing delays ai Benson Rd 5 and Benson Drive S (Exhibit
15J.
8ased on public comments received, sraff required an evaluation by an independent
qualified professional reqarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the
effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures. An Independent Secondary
Review of the provided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21,2016(Exhibit
17). In general, the secondary review affirmed the overoll trip distribution patterns.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Comr�ty&Economic Development v�prin���������8. ��
AVANA RIDGE PUD � ! LUAIS-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 23 of 44
The report however, recommended revisions be made to the traffic counts to consider
the worse-case traffic scenario given the observed interseciion queuing at 108`h Ave SE
and Benson Rd 5. The applicant provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response
to the recommendations included in the secondary review (Exhibit 18J. The memo
generally concurred with the�ecommendotions of the peer review with the exception
for the removal of the site driveway access restrictions to SE 172nd Street. The
applicant's response memo revised the TIA to reflect recommended changes in trip
distribution, balanced trpffic volumes, the analysis of queuing on Benson Rd and left
turn lane warronts.
After review of the original Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit 15J, Independent Secondary
Review (Exhibit 17J, and the opplicanYs response memo (Exf�ibit 18J staff provided
applicable commenis below for each Transpo�tation subject.
Access: The applicant is proposing two pornts of ingress and egress into the site in
order to meet Fire Department requirements for access. The applicant proposes one
entrance off of SE 172nd St between the proposed buildings, and one entrance off of
eenson Road South. The two access points converge to form drive-throuqh access
through the site. Several public comments were received requesting pccess be
eliminated from SE 172"d St, in order to mitigate anticipated cut through traffic on
neighboring roads to the north. In addition, concerns were rarsed regarding the
blocking of the proposed access, along Benson Rd 5, during PM peak hour traffic. The
applicant has proposed a driveway configuration which would attempt to restrict
movements to left-in/right —out only as wpy to mitigate cut through iraffic on
residential streets to the north.
Access ond proposed mitigation, was analyzed as part of the Independent Secondary
Review prepared by TENW(Exhibit 17J. TENW generally affirmed the trip distribution
assumptions made by TraffEx and substantioted the need for two access points. With
respect to proposed mitigation, TraffEx determined that the proposed SE 172nd Si
driveway tonfiguration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring
residentio!streets to the north. In addition, it is aniicipated that restrictions to the SE
172nd drivewoy would encourage u-turns and associated impacts to existing residential
driveways along the north side of SE 172nd St. Therefore, staff is recommending a
conditian of Hearing Examiner approval, ihe elimination of the proposed access
restrictions along SE 172"d Sr in order to provide full access along SE 172nd St. A revised
site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to
engineering permit approval.
ln order to address anticipated impacts on neighboring streets caused by cut-through
traffic, a traffic calming SEPA mitiqation measure was required in lieu of the foregoing
site access restriction (Exhibit 20J. Specifically, Electronic Speed Radar Signs are
required to be installed in the northbound direction on both 106"'Ave SE and 104`h Ave
SE.
Leve! of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate
approximately 492 overage doily trips with 38 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peok-
hour trips. The provided report onalyzed ihree intersection locations(Exhibit 25J:
lnterseciion 1; Site Access/SE 172"d Sr
Intersection 2: 108`h Ave SE/Benson Rd S/SE 172"d Sr
lntersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd S/108"'Ave SE
HfX Staff Repart Avana Ridge PUD_LUAIS-000894
City of Rentan Department of Com�pty&Economic Deve/opment "v�arin�E�f�pr��rr��'�v�8� �1
�. ._.. �
AVANA RIDGE PUD L�lA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 24 of 44
The provided analysis notes thot all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of
service with the proposed development. Therefore, the proposal would nor be
required to mitigate at any intersection. Analysis of future conditions address
cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the study area.
Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection of SE 171"d St and
eenson Rd S. The report states there is na need for a signal at the inrersection as a
result of the project.
Nowever, the Transportation Department conducted a model to assess any possible
solutron to address the citizen's concerns regarding the backing of queue on Benson
Road from the intersection with SR 515 to SE 172nd Street. Unfortunately, staff is
unable to provide an update on the model conducted at this time.
Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of
iransportation impact fees. The transportation impoct fee that is current af the time
of building permit application wi11 be levied. The applicant submitted for a building
permit in December of 2015. The fee in 2015 was assessed at $2,214.44 per new
multi family unit. The fee is estimated ot approximately $164,000. The fee shal! be
payable to the City at the time of building permit issuance.
Site Distonce: The provided Traffic Impact Analysis states sight distance requirements
are met at the site access driveway onto SE 172"d St and with vegetation trimming,
withrn the right of way, at the site access driveway to eenson Rd 5(Exhibit 15).
Street Improvements: Street Improvements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060 — Street
Standards.See below:
Benson Drive S — Benson Drive S (SR 515J is a principal arteria! and a state route
roadway along the project's west property line. The existing road currently contains
curb, gutter, and sidewaik on both sides of[he street. There is currently no planter
strip existing along the Benson Drive S street fiontage. Per code, frontage
improvements incfuding 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an S foot wide landscoped
planter, an 8 foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are
required on principol prterial streets. The applicant is p�oposing to maintain the
existing right-of-way. Due to critical areas along portions of the frontage, the
applicant has requested a modificotion through the PUD to allow the sidewalk io
remain in the current locotion for those areas where critical areas are located.
Stoff is in support of the requested modification. 8y maintaining the existing sidewalk,
the need for terraced retoining wa11s would be eliminated and impacts to the stream
buffer along eenson Drive 5 would be minimized. The applicani has also proposed a
walking path iniernal to the site to promote pedestrian connectivity. Staff
recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate 1 foot behind
the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations alonq
eenson Drive S. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary occupancy
approval.
Benson Rd S— Benson Rd S is a minor orterial along the project's east property line.
Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the
street fronting the development. Per code, the minimum right-of-way width required
for a minor arterial is 91 feet. The available right-of-way width on the Benson Rd 5
frontage, per the King County assessor map, is 100 feet and would not necessitate
additional right-of-way dedication. The required paved width on this street is 44 feet,
which includes three rravel lanes and a 5 foot wide bike lane on both sides of the
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Cam�;,ity&Economic Development �to��n�������/��8� b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD � 5-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 25 of 44
street. Frontoge improvemenis would include the followinq: a 0.5 foot wide curb and
gutter, on 8 foot wide landscaped planter, an 8 foot wide sidewalk,street lighting, and
stormwpter improvements are required. The applicant is proposing street
improvements along Benson Rd 5 which comply with code.
SE 172"d St—SE 172"d St is a commercial mixed use and industrial access street along
the project's north property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be
provided on the side of the street frontinq the development Per code, the minimum
right-of-way width required for a commercial mixed use and industrial pccess street is
69 feei. The available right-of-wpy width on the SE 172nd St frontage, per the King
County assesso�map, is 60 feet and would require additional right-of-way dedication.
Frontage improvements would include the fol/owing:on 8 foot parking lane, a 0.5 foot
wide curb and gutter, an 8 fooi wide landscaped planter, a 6 foot wide sidewalk,
street lighting, and stormwater improvements are required. The ppplicant is
proposing street improvemencs, plong SE 172nd Sf, which comply with code. The
applicant however has requested a modification through the PUD to reduce the
required dedication from 4.5 feei to 3 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the
requested modification. Staff recommends a condition of approva! requiring the
applicont to dedicate 1 foot behind ti►e sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication
for luminaire foundations along SE 172"d St. Ti►e dedication shall be required prior to
temporary occupancy ppproval.
Temporarv Impacts: Given the concentration of development to occurring in the
immediote vicinity of the project site,siaff antrcipates that rhe proposed project wou(d
contribute to short term impacts co the City's street system. Therefore, staff is
recommending a condifion of approval requiring the applicant create a public
outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate with road users, the
qeneral public, area residences and businesses, and appropriafe public entities about
project information;road conditions in the work zone area;and the safety and mobility
effects of the work zone. The sign shall be placed on si[e prior to const�uction
commencement.
Pedestrian Imvrovements: As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be
constructed along the frontaqe of the site and would connect ro the existing sidewalk
system. However, safety concerns have been raised with respect to pedestrion
connectivity off site due to missing sidewalk linkages approaching the intersection of
Benson Rd S and SE 171"d St. Given the number of unifs proposed it is ve�y likely that a
la�ge inf/ux of people would utilize the pub/ic sidewalk system as we// as the
anticipated school bus stop ocross 8enson Rd 5. Providing pedestrian connections to
abutiing properties is an important aspect of connectivity and encourages pedestrion
activity and is required to be considered when reviewing the subject application. The
condition of the existing p�otruded curb, approaching the intersection of SE 172"d St
and Benson Rd S, has been largely disturbed and daes not provide a safe route for
school children and or residents walking to and from ihe site. As a result, a SEPA
mitigation measure was issued requiring the applicant to provide an off-site sidewalk,
along the south side of SE 172"d St and the wes[side of eenson Rd S, appraoching the
intersedion (fxhibit 20). A street lighting anolysis is also required to be conducted by
the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of Sf 172"d St ond eenson Rd
S.
Concurrencv-Staff recommends o transportation concurrency approval based upon p
[esi of the citywide Transportation Plon, consideration of growrh levels included in the
LOS-tested Transportation P/an, payment of a Transportation Mitigption Fee, and an
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
Cicy of Renton Department of Cam�;ty&Economic Development �rincr�E�DRIS-UDU�4;RPiTD,EC�v• b�
AVANA RIOGE PUD � + ���
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 26 of 44
application of site specific mitigation(Exhibit 23J.
27. Infrastructure and Services: Provides utility services, emergency services, and other improvements,
existing and proposed, which are sufficient to serve the development. The proposal is compliant with
the following development standards if all conditions of approval are met:
tompliance Infrastructure and Services Analysis
Police and Fire:Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated ihatsufficient resources exist
to furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code
required improvements and fees.
The preliminary fire flow requirements for this project, as proposed, is �,250 gpm. A
minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 50 feet af a11 fire departmenr
� connection for standpoints and sprinkler systems.
A Fire Impact Fee, based on new multi family units is required in order to mitigate the
proposa!'s poteniia( impacts to City emergency services. The applicant would be
required to pay an appropriate Fire lmpact Fee. The fee is payable to the City as
specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit application. A
building permit application was submitted in December of 2015. The 2015 fee was
assessed at$463.66 per multi family.
Parks and Recreation: The proposed development is anticipated to impact the Parks
and Recreation system. The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Parks
Impact Fee. The fee would be used to mitigate the proposal's potential impact to
✓ City's Park and Recreation system and is payable to the City as specified by the Renton
Municipal Code at the time of buildinq permit application. A building permit
application was submitied in December of 1015. The 2015 fee was assessed ar
$975.90 per multi family unit.
Schools: li is anticrpated that the Renton Schoo! District can accommodate al!
additional students generated by this proposa! at the followinq schools: Cascade
Elementary(1.2 mi(e from the subject siteJ, Nelson Middle School(0.8 mifes from the
subject siieJ and Lindbergh Hiqh School(2.1 miles from the subject site).
Future students are designated to be transported to school via bus for Elementary, and
Comp�iant if High School. Students would be within walking drstance to designated middle school,
Condition of For safe walking conditions, see discussion under FOF 26: PUD Criteria and Analysis,
Approval is Circulation.
Met q School Impact Fee, based on new multi family units, will be required in order to
mitiqate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable
to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code at the time of building permit
application. A building permit application was submitted in December of 2015. The
2015 fee was assessed at $1,339.00 per multi family unit with credit given for the
existing residence.
Storm Water:An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage
of all surface water.
✓ Staff Comment: The site is located within the Black River drainage basin and Panther
Creek drainage sub-basin. Upstream runoff enters the site in two locations. Portions of
SE 172"°'St and 106`h Ave SE direct upstream runoff across the northern property line.
Upstream runoff from the west side of Benson Rd 5 flows into a ditch along the east
HEKStoff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Co►�ity& Economic Development �arrn 1
AVANA R/DGE PUD � /el��,����8, �j j
utsy
Report of May 3,2016 Page 27 of 44
property line. Runnoff currently discharges at the sites western property line, at two
locations, and heads north through a conveyance system in eenson Drive 5. The flows
eventuolly cross under Benson Orive 5 and conveyed a westerly direction in a series of
pipes and cafch basis eventually outfalling into Panther Creek.
This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual
and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. eased on the
City's flow control map, rhis site fal(s wrthin the Flow Control Duration Standard,
Forested Conditions. This project is subject to full drainage review. The applicant
submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R.Sirong, dated December 28,
2oi5(Exhibir 9).
The report also includes a detailed summary of the pre ond post developed conditions.
The stormwater detention and water quolity rreatment would be provided within a
combined detention/water quality vault under the parking area located in the western
portion of the site. The combined detention/water quality voult would be followed by a
media fiitration system to accommodate the Enhanced Water Quality Treatment
requiremenrs for multi family developmenr. For water quality features that are not in
the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM, and which have the General Use level
designation throuqh the state Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment
Protoco! — Ecology (TAPEJ program, an od%ustment process request is required.
Conditions associared with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include a requirement
for the submittal, and approval, of on Adjustment in order to utilize water quality
feoiures which are not in the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM.
Water and Sanitary Sewer:
Staff Comment: Water and sewer service is provided by Soos Creek Woter and Sewer
.i District. A water and sewer pvailability certificate from the Soos Creek utility district
was submitted to the City with the land use application. Approved water pnd sewer
plans from Soos Creek are required to be provided during utility construction permit
approval.
Clusters or Building Groups and Open Space:An appearance of openness created by
clustering, separation of building groups, and through the use of well-designed open
space and landscaping, or a reduction in amount of impervious surfaces not otherwise
required.
Staff Comment: The proposed development is designed specifica!!y to increase the
access and opportunity for open space. The multiple open spaces throughout the site
are well designed and provide a variety of recreational opportunities both passive and
active. The proposed structures are clustered to the interior of the site allowinq for
large open spaces.
✓
The PUD places the buildings poralle!to the neighboring properties to the north. This
maximizes the opportunity for surface parking screening and a larqe, uninterrupted
open space to the south. Due to the presence of a stream along the lower area of the
site, a natural border exists. A pedestrian bridge crosses the stream to link the open
space and the residential developments.
The overall project has less impervious surface thpn otherwise would 6e expected.
Based on the provided T!R the site would contain approximately 40.1% impervious
surfpces for the overall site. This would include building areas, associated wplkways,
driveways,parking and drive aisles.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD L!1A15-000894
City of Rentan Department of Corr�ity&Economic Development �arinAF���Ain'P��ac�iq�8. �1
AVANAR/DGEPUD f � LUAIS-�00894,PPUD,ECF I
Report of May 3,2016 Page 28 of 44
Privacy and Building Separation: Provides internal privacy between dwelling units,
and external privacy for adjacent and abutting dwelling units. Each residential or
mixed use development shalt provide visual and acoustical privacy for dwelling units
and surrounding properties. Fences, insulation, walks, barriers, and landscaping are
used, as appropriate, for the protection and aesthetic enhancement of the property,
the privacy of site occupants and surrounding properties,and for screening of storage,
mechanical or other appropriate areas, and for the reduction of noise. Windows are
placed at such a height or location or screened to provide sufficient privacy.Sufficient
light and air are provided to each dwelling unit.
Staff Comment: Dwe!ling units are designed such that no two outdoor decks ore
directly adjocent to one another. Decks and building modulation have been designed
cohesively to allow screening by the building to decks for resident privacy. Units within
� each building are oriented to the north and south, and mimic the residential choracter
of the properties to the north.
The applicant has utilized landscaping and building screening techniques throughout
the development to promote privacy and discourage the use of window screening
elements as a privacy-creating element that block opportunities for natural light.
Living area windows are large and aim to bring as much notural Irght into every unit as
possible, while bedroom windows are adequately sized for light while sti!!providinq
omple privacy through the use of raised sill heights. Candscape buffers also exist at
ground-level uses to aid in noise reduction from the street.
The placement of the buildings, oriented io open space, provides separatian and
privacy for the residenrs while maintaining a communal atmosphere.
See additional discussion under FOF 29:Design District Review, Ground Level Details.
Building Orientation: Provides buildings oriented to enhance views from within the
site by taking advantage of topography,building location and style.
'� Staff Comment: The buildings are orientated toward the open spaces or toward rhe
offsite view vistas afforded in the naturally elevated site locaiion. There is minimal
orientation toward off site non view areas.
Parking Area Design: Provides parking areas that are complemented by landscaping
and not designed in long rows.The size of parking areas is minimized in comparison to
typical designs, and each area related to the group of buildings served. The design
provides for efficient use of parking, and shared parking facilities where appropriate.
Staff Comment: Parking across the site would be handled in way as to not have large
✓ surface parking areas. Instead the applicant is proposing ihe use of paralle! parking
stalls along the perimeter of the proposed drive aisle.
The surface parking design is comprised of 90-deqree stalls to make maximum use of
parking area and provide clear, safe vehicular circulacion that promotes visibility. The
use of compact stalls is minima! and is well under the code-required maximums for
compact stall counts.
Phasing: Each phase of the proposed development contains the required parking
N/A spaces,open space, recreation spaces, landscaping and utilities necessary for creating
and sustaining a desirable and stable environment, so that each phase, together with
previous phases,can stand alone.
HEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ty&Economic Deve/opment ar�n ►�rn+�nn�r��rri�f�o��. b 1
AVANA R/DGE PUD ' � � L�A15 0 0894 P UD ECF I
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 29 of 44
28. PUD Development Standards: Pursuant to RMC 4-9-150D.4, each planned urban development shall
demonstrate compliance with the development standards for the Planned Urban Development
regulations. The following table contains project elements intended to comply with the devetopment
standards of the Planned Urban Development regulations,as outlined in RMC 4-9-150E:
Compliance PUO Development Standard Anatysis'
1. COMMON OPEN SPACE STANDARD: Open space shall be concentrated in large usable areas and
may be designed to provide either active or passive recreation. Requirements for residential, mixed
use,commercial,and industrial developments are described below.
Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten (10) or
more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation
area equal to fifty (50) square feet per unit. The common space area shall be
aggregated to provide usable area(s)for residents.The location, layout, and proposed
type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Hearing
Examiner. The required common open space shall be satisfied with one or more of
the elements listed below. The Hearing Examiner may require more than one of the
following elements for developments having more than one hundred (100) units.
� (a)Courtyards, plazas,or multipurpose open spaces;
(b) Upper Jevel common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above
the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and
provided as an asset to the development;
(c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public
street system;
(d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to: tennis/sports courts, swimming
pools,exercise areas,game rooms,or other similar facilities;or
(e)Children's play spaces.
Standard: Required landscaping, driveways, parking,or other vehicular use areas shall
✓ not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated
outdoor recreation or common use areas.
Standard: Required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and
common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi-private (from
✓ abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing
landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all
residents of the development.
� Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not
count toward the common space/recreation area requirement.
Standard: Other required landscaping, and sensitive area buffers without common
� access links, such as pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required
recreation and common space requirement.
Standard: All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square
feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide
N/A pedestrian-oriented space according to the following formula�
l�e of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian-
oriented space.
NEXStaff Report Avano Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ity&Economic Development �$orinq�FjreE�����8. b 1
AVaNA RIDGE PUD a f�i h7 �
Report of May 3,2016 Page 30 of 44
� Standard:The location of public open space shall be considered in relation to building
orientation,sun and light exposure,and local micro-climatic conditions.
Standard: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential
✓ projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units,
accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units.
Standard: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding
✓ features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or
architecture, and solar exposure.
Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play
��,q space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from
hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking
areas.
b.Private Open Space: Each residential unit in a planned urban development shall have usable
private open space (in addition to parking, storage space, lobbies, and corridors)for the exclusive use
of the occupants of that unit. Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have
private open space which is contiguous to the unit.
Standard: Each ground floor unit, whether attached or detached, shall have private
open space which is contiguous to the unit.
Staff Comment: It does not appear ground related residentia! units have designated
Compliant if private open space. As such, staff recommends a condirion of approva! that the
Condirions of applicant provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open
Approval are space standard of at least IS feet in every dimension for al!qround related units. The
Met revised site plan sha!l be submitted to, and appraved by, the Currenc Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approva!whichever comes first.
Additional requirements for ground related private open space can be found below
underGround Level Details.
Compliant �f Standard: The private open space shall be well demarcated and at least fifteen feet
Conditions of �15') in every dimension (decks on upper floors can substitute for the required private
Approva/ are open space).
Met Siaff Comment:See comment above.
Standard: For dwelling units which are exclusively upper story units, there shall be
deck areas totaling at least sixty (60) square feet in size with no dimension less than
five feet(S').
Staff Comment: Not a!1 upper story residential units appear to have private open
Compliant if space dimensioned at 60 feet. The applicant has requested to vary this standard as
Conditions of pprt of the PUD. However, the City is unable to modify any of the provisions of the
Approvol are planned Urban Development Regulations. As such, staff recommends a condition of
Met ppproval that the applicant provide revised elevations demonstrating complionce with
the private open space standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no drmension
less than 5 feet for al!upper story units. The revised elevations shal!be submitted to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval whichever comes first.
c.Installation and Maintenance of Common Open Space:
,i Standard: All common facilities not deditated to the City shall be permanently
maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or
HEX Stajf Repori Avana Ridge PUD_1UA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ity& Economic Development �arinqhE'�a�rir�ei/i�e�4;PfDD;EC�s• b
AVANA RlDGE PUD � ��,� s�� )
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 31 of 44
by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such
facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the
City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or
property owners' association accordingly. Such bill, if unpaid, shall become a lien
against each individual property.
Staff Comment: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall
furnish a security device to the City in an amount equa!to the provisions of RMC 4-9-
060. Londscaping shall be planted within one year of the dote of final approval of the
planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years thereafter prior to
the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of
landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable
landscaping firm (icensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept
active for a 2 year period. A copy of such contract shall be kept on fi/e with the
Planninq Division. If this condition of approval is met fhe proposal would satisfy this
standard.
d. Installation and Maintenance of Common Facilities:
Standard: Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, al! common facilities,
including but not limited to utilities,storm drainage,streets, recreation facitities, etc.,
shall be completed by the developer or, if deferred by the Administrator, assured
through a security device to the City equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060, except
for such common facilities that are intended to serve only future phases of a planned
N/A urban deveiopment. Any common facilities that are intended to serve both the
present and future phases of a planned urban development shall be installed or
secured with a security instrument as specified above before occupancy of the
earliest phase that will be served. At the time of such security and deferral, the City
shall determine what portion of the costs of improvements is attributable to each
phase of a planned urban development.
Standard: All common facilities not dedicated to the City shall be permanently
maintained by the planned urban development owner, if there is only one owner, or
by the property owners' association, or the agent(s) thereof. In the event that such
facilities are not maintained in a responsible manner, as determined by the City, the
� City shall have the right to provide for the maintenance thereof and bill the owner or
property owners' association accordingly. Such bili, if unpaid, shall become a lien
against each individual property.
Staff Comment: Bosed on the proposed application the only orea to be dedicated to
the City is ihe required right-of-woy and ihe drainage detention pond. As such alI
other facilities shall be permanent/y mointained by the property owner.
29. Design District Review: The project site is located within Design District 'B'. The following table
contains project elements intended to comply with the standards of the Design District `6' Standards
and guidelines,as outlined in RMC 4-3-100.E:
Compliance Deslgn District Guideline and Standard Analysis
1.SITE DESI6N AND BUILDING LOCATION:
Intent:To ensure that buildings are IOCdted in relation to streets and other buildings so that the VisiOn
of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy
visibility from public rights-of-way;and to encourage pedestrian activity,
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Departmen[of Co���ty&Economic Deve/opment y�arino�E'��4;PrDD;EC�B. bJ
AVANA R1DGE PUD � ���
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 32 of 44
a. Building location and Orientation:
Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses and to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways.To organize buildings for pedestrian use and so that natural light is available to
other structures and open space. To ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking
areas, and other land uses;and increase privacy for residential uses.
Guidelines: Developments shall enhance the mutual relationship of buildings with each other, as well
as with the roads, open space, and pedestrian amenities while working to create a pedestrian
oriented environment. Lots shall be configured to encourage variety and so that natural light is
available to buildings and open space. The privacy of individuals in residential uses shall be provided
for.
Standard: The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun
✓ exposure to nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be
considered when siting structures.
� Standard: Buildings shalt be oriented to the street with clear connections to the
sidewalk.
� Standard:The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped
pedestrian-only courtyard.
Standard:Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be:
a. Set back from the sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10') and feature
substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building;or
b. Have the ground floor residential uses raised above street level for
Requested to residents' privacy.
be Modi�ed
Through the Staff Comment: The opplicant is proposing ground related residentia/ uses afonq
PUo various facades. Due to the unique site conditions and topoqraphic challenges along
the applicant is proposing to provide some of the ground floor residential units at or
beJow grade as part of the PUD. Constructing all ground related units above grade
would require increases to the height of the structures and srgnificant site disruption.
Therefore, staff is in support of the requested modification, through the PUD, if al1
conditions of approvol are met.
b. Building Entries:
Intent:To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building
entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district.
Guidelines: Primary entries shall face the street, serve as a focal point, and allow space for social
interaction. All entries shall include features that make them easily identifiable while reflecting the
architectural character of the building. The primary entry shall be the most visually prominent entry.
Pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk, parking lots, and/or other areas shall be provided
and shall enhance the overall quality of the pedestrian experience on the site.
Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a
►� street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the
public sidewalk,and include human-scale elements.
Compliontif Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be made visibly prominent by
Condition of incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry
Approvo/is
Met doors,and/or ornamental lighting.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD_LUA15-000894
City of Renton Deportment of Com�ity& Economic Development �arin � I��
AVANA RIDGE PUD ' /����4;�'Pi7D,F�8• b�
Report of May 3,2016 Page 33 of 44
Siaff Comment:See Ground Cevel Details below.
Standard Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies,
architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather
protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2') wide. Buildings that are taller than
thirty feet(30') in height shall also ensure that the weather protection is proportional
to the distance above ground level.
Compliantif Staff�Comment: The applicant is proposing ground reloted residentia! uses along SE
Conditionof 1�2 St. Staff is recommending p condition of approval requiring entrances and
Approval is pedestrian connections from proposed pptios to the public sidewplk system (see
Met discussion belowJ. As a resuli,staff recommends that buildinq entries from a street be
clearly marked with canopies, architectura/ elements, ornamental lighting, pnd/or
landscaping ond include weather protection at least four and one-half feet (4-1/2'J
wide. The revised elevptions shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Cur�ent
Plonning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The applicant is
encouraged to mimic the canopy used for the primpry entrances in a smaller
application for ground related unit entrances.
� Standard: Building entries from a parking lot shall be subordinate to those related to
the street.
Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to
N/A a street or pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features
should be incorporated.
Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall direct views to building entries by
✓ providing a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate
landscaping.
Standard: Ground floor residential units that are directly accessible from the street
shall include entries from front yards to provide transition space from the street or
entries from an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the
street.
Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing ground related residential uses olong the
SE 172n°St. The proposal partially complies with the standard with the use of pptios.
Compliant if However, the proposal does not indude entrances and pedestrian connections from
[ondition of proposed patios to the public sidewalk. Therefore,staff recommends as a condition of
appraval is opproval the opplicant be required to sutrmit a revised site and landscaping plan
Met depicting entrpnces and pedestrian connections from ground related residentia(units,
along SE 172nd St, to the public sidewalk. The revised landscape and site plan shal!be
submitted to and approved by ti►e Current Planning Project Manager prior to building
permit approvaL Stoff is aware there may be topogrpphic chollenges with entrances
along SE 172"d St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or
demonstrate separote entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval.
If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard.
c.Transition to Surrounding Development:
�ntents To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-
estab(ished,existing neighborhocds are preserved.
Guidelines: Careful siting and design treatment shall be used to achieve a compatible transition
where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale.
NEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Co.r^�ty&Economic Deve/apment �prinq�F����rr'�o�8� b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ��l - 0894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 34 of 44
Standard: At least one of the foflowing design elements shalt be used to promote a
transition to surrounding uses:
1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the
surrounding planned and existing land use forms;or
2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller
✓ increments;or
3. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and
transition with existing development.
Additionally,the Administrator may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a
building in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that
sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards.
d.Service Element location and Design:
Intent:To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading
docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening
them from view in high visibility areas.
Guidelines: Service elements shall be concentrated and located so that impacts to pedestrians and
other abutting uses are minimized. The impacts of service elements shall be mitigated with
landscaping and an enclosure with fencing that is made of quality materials.
Standard:Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on
� the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be
concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and
convenient for tenant use.
Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling
collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roaf and
screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors.
Compliant if
Condition oj Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing a refuse and recycle enclosure ot a central
approval is location on srte. The proposed elevations do not depict a roof for the enclosure.
Met Therefore, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant submit
revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include a roof. The revised
elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval.
� Standard: Service enclosures shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood,
or some combination of the three(3).
Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented
N/A space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides
of such facility.
2.PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCE55:
Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate
various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and
other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in
reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining
contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize
the visual impact of parking lots;and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the
HEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
Crty of Renton Department of Co�--,,�„ity&Economic Deve%pment �aarinp J
AVANA R/DGf PUD I�i�������8, b
f�Pu� �
Report of May 3,2016 Page 35 of 44
district.
a. Surface Parking:
Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in
back of buildings.
Guidelines: Surface parking shall be located and designed so as to reduce the visual impact of the
parking area and associated vehicles. Large areas of surface parking shall also be designed to
accommodate future infill development.
Standard: Parking shall be located so that no surface parking is located between:
✓ (a)A building and the front property line;and/or
(b)A building and the side property line (when on a corner lot�.
� Standard: Parking shall be located so that it is screened from surrounding streets by
buildings, landscaping,and/or gateway features as dictated by location.
b. Structured Parking Garages:
Intent: To promote more efficient use of land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of
structured parking; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the
overall impact of parking garages.
Guidelines: Parking garages shall not dominate the streetscape; they shall be designed to be
complementary with adjacent and abutting buildings. They shall be sited to complement, not
subordinate, pedestrian entries. Similar forms, materials, and/or details to the primary building(s)
should be used to enhance garages.
Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses
N/A along street frontages at a minimum of seventy five percent (75%) of the building
frontage width.
Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian-oriented facade. The
Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development may
approve parking structures that do not feature a pedestrian orientation in limited
N/A circumstances. If allowed, the structure shall be set back at least six feet (6') from the
sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This landscaping shall include a
combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This
setback shall be increased to ten feet (10') when abutting a primary arterial and/or
minor arterial.
N/A Standard: Public facing facades shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim,or
other architectural elements and/or materials.
N�A Standard: The entry to the parking garage shall be located away from the primary
street,to either the side or rear of the building.
Standard: Parking garages at grade shall include screening or be enclosed from view
N/A with treatment such as walls, decorative grilles, trellis with landscaping, or a
combination of treatments.
Standard: The Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic
Development or designee may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can
N�A successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment
meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the
setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUO LUAIS-000894
City of Ren[on Department of Cam�ty&Economic Devefopment � �'arin�E �o,�i 8, b�
AVANA R1DGE PUD ���3�4n�PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3,2016 Page 36 of 44
with the architectural design of the building:
(a)Ornamental grillwork(other than vertical bars);
(b) Decorative artwork;
(c) Display windows;
(d) Brick,tile,or stone;
(e) Pre-cast decorative panels;
(f)Vine-covered trellis;
(g) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials;or
(h)Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard...
c. Vehicular Access:
Intent: To maintain a contiguous and uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating, and/or
eliminating vehicular access off streets.
Guidelines: Vehicular access to parking garages and parking lots shall not impede or interrupt
pedestrian mobility.The impacts of curb cuts to pedestrian access on sidewalks shall be minimized.
� Standard: Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If
not available,access shall occur at side streets.
� Standard: The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that
pedestrian circulation a�ong the sidewalk is minimally impeded.
3. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT:
Intent:To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by
creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building
entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant
to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and
promote the use of multi-modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular
traffic_
a. Pedestrian Circulation:
Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and
enhance the pedestrian environment.
Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of
projects. 5idewalks and/or pathways shall be provided and shall provide safe access to buildings from
parking areas. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of
connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and shall be considered. Pathways shall be easily
identifiable to pedestrians and drivers.
Standard:A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and
connect buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and
abutting properties shall be provided.
'� (a) Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines,to increase safety.
(b) Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the
applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the
anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�=ty&Economic Development a��n��ai��(��4;P�D;EG�8• b�
AVANA R/OGE PUD ( �
azs-�
Report of May 3,2016 Page 37 of 44
development.
Standard: Pathways within parking areas shall be provided and differentiated by
materia!or texture (i.e., raised walkway, stamped concrete, or pavers) from abutting
paving materials. Permeable materials are encouraged. The pathways shall be
perpendicular to the applicable building facade and no greater than one hundred fifty
feet(150')apart.
Compliontif Staff Comment: The a l�cant hps
Conditions of PP proposed a series of pedestrian connections
Approvol are throughout the site however it rs unclear if there is a differentiation of materials
n�er across the drive aisles (Exi►ibit 2J. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of
approval, the applicant revise the siie plan io depict a differentiation rn materials for
all pedestrian connections within parking areos and/or drive aisles on sife_ The revised
site plan shall be submitted to and approved by ti►e Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building/engineering permit approval. lf this condition of approval is met the
proposal would satisfy this srandard.
Standard:Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users.Specifically:
(a)Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings
100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at
least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed
✓ walking surface.
(b) Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a
hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no
smaller than five feet(S')and no greater than twelve feet(12').
(c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient
width to accommodate the anticipated number of users.
N/A Standard:Mid-block connections between buildings shall be provided.
b. Pedestrian Amenities:
Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting
and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of
year-round activities, under typical seasonal weather conditions.
Guidelines: The pedestrian environment shall be given priority and importance in the design of
projects. Amenities that encourage pedestrian use and enhance the pedestrian experience shall be
included.
Standard: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, particularly at building
Compliant if entrances, in publicly accessible spaces and at facades along streets, shall be
Condition of PrOvided.
Approval is Mei Staff Comment:See Building Entries and Ground Level Details discussion below.
Standard: Amenities suCh as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelter5,
Co►nplio.rtif fountains,and public art shall be provided.
Cond7tionoj {a) Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant
Approvalis Met materials that d0 not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an
extended period of time.
HEX Stojf Report Avano Ridge PlJD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com��ty&Economic Deve/opment w�arin4,Ey��75-IIQD8.44;P�UD;E�8• b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ���h
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 38 of 44
(b) Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to
public spaces or building entrances.
Staff Comment: The community open space includes lawn to allow for pciive
recreation and more intimate locations featuring picnic tables and benches. Also
induded is an ornamentaf povilion intended to provide views from the site and for
public gathering opportunities, ornamental plantings and scu(ptural focus points. The
proposa!did not include specifications for proposed pedestrian amenities. Therefore
staff was unable to verify the whether site furniture is compliant with the standard.
As such, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring the applicant provide
detoiled specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to ensure durable, vandal-
and weather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit
approval.
4.RECREATION AREAS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE:
Intent:To ensure that areas for both passive and active recreation are availabfe to residents,workers,
and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient
locations. To create usable and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and to promote
pedestrian activity on streets particularly at street corners.
Guidelines: Developments located at street intersections should provide pedestrian-oriented space at
the street corner to emphasize pedestrian activity(illustration below). Recreation and common open
space areas are integral aspects of quality development that encourage pedestrians and users.These
areas shall be provided in an amount that is adequate to be functional and usable; they shall also be
landscaped and located so that they are appealing to users and pedestrians
Standard: All attached housing developments shalt provide at least one hundred fifty
Requested to (150) square feet of private usable space per unit. At least one hundred (100j square
be Madified feet of the private space shall abut each unit. Private space may include porches,
rhrough the balconies,yards, and decks.
PUD
Sraff Comment:See discussion above under Private Open Space.
5.BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN:
Intent:To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human
scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To
discourage franchise retail architecture.
a.Building Character and Massing:
Intent:To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure
that all sides of a building,that can be seen by the public,are visually interesting.
Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce the apparent size of
buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the
neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important
to residential buildings.
� Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of
no more than twenty feet(20').
� Standard: Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet(2') in depth and four feet(4')
in width.
HEX Stoff Report Avana Ridge Pt1D LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Co�r+;�ry&Economic Deve/opment �arin��I����4,r,�„�,,,,r� �8, b
AVANA R/DGE PUD � �/C'/y�� )
PfDD F'
Report of May 3,2016 Page 39 of 44
Standard: Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet(160') in length shall provide
� a variety of modulations and articulations to reduce the apparent bulk and scale of
the facade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard,
fountain,or public gathering area.
b.Ground-level Details:
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-scale
character of the pedestrian environment;and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant
public view have visual interest.
Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood
siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by
incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or
ornamental lighting(illustration below). Detail features should also be used, to include things such as
decorative entry paving,street furniture(benches,etc.),and/or public art.
Standard:Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture,trellis, or other landscape
feature shall be provided along the facade's ground floor.
Staff Comment: The applicant has proposed some human scole elements including
landscape features, large windows and vpried mpterial patterns at the primary
enirances. Window patterns vary based on interior Ipyout, but all focades feature a
variety of window types. Wall areas visible from public streets and sidewalks are
treated with trellis elements at the upper levels, canopies at pedestrian entries and
ameniry spaces, and witi► landscaped vinery walls and plantings. Landscaping pnd
artwork are also proposed to break up public frontinq facades where windows are
impractica! due to interior configurations. However, the proposal does not comply
with the entrance and connectivity standards for ground related units along SE 172nd
Compliant if St. The ground floor facades, specifically the ground related units along SE 172"d St,
condirion of are in need of additional humpn scale elements in order to reinforce ti►e pedestrion
Approval is Met orientation of the development used to justify the PUD request. Architeciural
detailing elements including entrance detailing/weather protection for ground related
units, fencing, connectivity, lightinq fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or special
detailing would bring the proposal into compliance with the intent of this standard to
creaie human-scale character in the pedestrian environment. Therefore, staff
recommends as a condition of approval, the opplicont submit revised elevations
depicting entrance deiailinq/weather protection for ground related units, fencing,
pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or special
detailing along SE 172nd Si. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved
by the Current Planning Project Manpger prior to building permit approval whichever
comes first.
If this condition of approval is met ihe proposal would satisfy this standard.
Standard: On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are
Compliontif required to comprise at least SO percent of the portion of the ground floor facade
condition of that is between 4 feet and 8 feet above ground (as measured on the true elevation).
Approva!is Met
Staff Comment;See discussion obove.
Standard; Upper portions of building facades shall have ctear windows with visibility
� into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and
energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be
50 percent.
HEx Staff Reporr Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Co�-�y,ity&Economic Development '�orin����m���#8, b�
AVANA RIOGE PUD ' ! A25-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 40 of 44
N/A Standard: Display windows shali be designed for frequent change of inerchandise,
rather than permanent displays.
N/A Standard: Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear
glazing.
� Standard: Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film are
prohibited.
Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining
walls) is considered a blank wall if:
(a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over 6 feet in
N/A height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a
window,door,building modulation or other architectural detailing;or
(b)Any portion of a ground floor wall has a surface area of 400 square feet or
greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other
architectural detailing.
Standard: If blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with
one or more of the following:
(a)A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs,
evergreen ground cover,or vines adjacent to the blank wall;
N�q (b)Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
(c)Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other
special detailing that meets the intent of this standard;
(d)Artwork,such as bas-relief sculpture, mural,or similar; or
(e)Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
d. Building Materials:
Intent:To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use
of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add
visual interest to the neighborhood.
Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural design of a
building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be used to create visual appeal
and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all facades in a consistent manner. High
quality materials shall be used. If materials like concrete or block walls are used they shall be
enhanced to create variation and enhance their visual appeal.
Standard:All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open
✓ space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and
color scheme,or if different,with materials of the same quality.
� Standard:All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal
banding, patterns or textural changes.
� Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have texture, pattern, and
be detailed on all visible facades.
Compl;antif Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more
Condition of traditional urban development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry,
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Com�ty& Economic Development y�Q�������'AIS- �����°�8• b�
AVANA R/DGE PUD ! L 0 0894,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 41 of 44
Approval is pre-finished metal,stone, steel,glass and cast-in-place concrete.
Met
Staff Commeni: In order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends
the opplicani submit a moterials board subject to the approvo!of the Currenr Planning
Project Manaqer prior to building permit approvol. The boprd shall indude color ond
materials for the following: guardrails, fa�ade treatments, retaining walls, roised
planters, siding, windows/fiames, and cpnopies. Acceptable macerrals include a
combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre frnished metal, stone,
steel, g/ass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved ot the
discretion of ihe Administrptor.
!f this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard.
N/A Standard: If concrete is used,walls shall be enhanced by techniques such as texturing,
reveals,and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture.
Standard:If concrete block walls are used, they shall be enhanced with integral color,
N/A textured blocks and colored mortar,decorative bond pattern and/or shall incorporate
other masonry materials.
L CONCLUSIONS:
1. The subject site is located in the Residential High Density (HD) Comprehensive Plan designation and
complies with the goals and policies estabtished with this designation if all conditions of approval are
met,see FOF 22.
2. The subject site is located in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zoning designation and complies with
the zoning and development standards established with this designation provided the applicant
complies with City Code and conditions of approval,see FOF 23.
3. The proposal complies with the Critical Area Regulations. Staff is in support of the requested buffer
averaging and stream alteration proposal provided the applicant complies with City Code and
conditions of approval, see FOF 24.
4. The proposal complies with the Urban Design Regulations provided the applicant complies with City
Code and conditions of approval,see FOF 29.
5. The proposal complies with the Planned Urban Development provided the applicant complies with City
Code and conditions of approval, with the exception of the private open space requirement, see FOF
25,26,and 28.
6. There are adequate public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed development, see FOF
27.
J. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Avana Ridge PUD, File No. LUA15-000894, as depicted in Exhibit 2, subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-
Significance Mitigated ERC Addendum,dated April 7,2016.
2. The applicant shall be required to record formal Lot Combination or Binding Site Plan in order to ensure
the proposed buildings are not built across property lines. The instrument shall be recorded prior to
building permit approval.
HEX Sioff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUAIS-000894
City of Renton Department of Cam+�ity&Economic Deve/opment �arinaE���iS-IIU0�4;P��,EC�8. b�
AVANA RIDGE Pt1D ���
Report of May 3,2016 Page 42 of 44
3. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan to the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to construction permit approval complying with RMC 4-4-070.
4. The applicant shall be required to submit a detailed landscape plan depicting at least 132, two-inch
caliper, trees (or the gross equivalent inches) on site; not including the those trees located within the
Native Growth Protection Easement. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved
by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval.
5. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan depicting a minimum three-foot landscaped
setback from the sidewalk at the base of retaining walls abutting, or within, public rights-of-way.
Landscaping shall include a mixture of shrubs and groundcover(trees are optional) in conformance with
the standards of RMC 4-4-070H4, Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. The revised landscaping plan
shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering
permit approval.
6. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-
050.H.2 demonstrating the reduced buffer wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream. The
revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to engineering permit approva�.
7. The applicant shall submit a revised Mitigation plan which addresses the criteria found in RMC 4-3-
OSO.H.2 demonstrating the bridged crossing wouldn't negatively impact the function of the stream.
The revised mitigation plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
8. The applicant shall establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over that part of the site
encompassing the stream and buffer area and place split rail fencing and signage along the outer edge
of the buffer. The Final Mitigation plan shall include all specifications for fencing and signage and shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit
approval.
9. The applicant shall be required to provide, to the Current Planning Project Manager, tree retention
inspection/monitoring reports after initial clearing, final grading, and annually for two years by a
qualified professional forester. The inspection/monitoring reports shal! identify any retained trees that
develop problems due to changing site conditions and prescribe mitigation.
10. The applicant shall provide interpretive signage/information regarding differentiating elements (trees,
landscaping, drainage, architecture, etc.) of the proposed development at a strategic place(s) on site.
The site plan depicting the signage shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit/Final Plat approval whichever comes first.
11. A detailed fencing plan shall be provided identifying the location and specifications for all fencing on
site. All fencing shall be made of quality materials in keeping with the architectural aesthetic of the
proposed structures. The fencing plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
12. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting
excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of engineering permit review. Pedestrian scale and
downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless
alternative pedestrian scale tighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as
exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site.
13. The applicant shall eliminate the proposed access restrictions along SE 172nd St in order to provide full
access along SE 172nd St. A revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Plan Reviewer
prior to engineering permit approval.
HEXStaff Report Avona Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renion Department of Corr�,;ty& Economic Deve%pment �orin J
AVANA RlOGE PUD `: �I����_nI P��B, b
virya � t1D f
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 43 of 44
14. The applicant shall dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for
luminaire foundations along Benson Drive 5. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary
occupancy approval.
15. The applicant shall dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for
luminaire foundations along SE 172nd St. The dedication shall be required prior to temporary
occupancy approval.
16. The applicant shall create a public outreach sign in coordination with City of Renton to communicate
with road users, the general public, area residences and businesses, and appropriate public entities
about project information; road conditions in the work zone area;and the safety and mobility effects of
the work zone.The sign shall be placed on site prior to construction commencement.
17. The applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating compliance with the private open space
standard of at feast 15-feet in every dimension for all ground related units. The revised site plan shall
be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit
approval whichever comes first.
18. The applicant shall provide revised elevations demonstrating compliance with the private open space
standard of at least 60 square feet in size with no dimension less than 5 feet for atl upper story units.
The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
19. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the developer shall furnish a security device to the City
in an amount equal to the provisions of RMC 4-9-060. Landscaping shall be planted within one year of
the date of fina! approval of the planned urban development, and maintained for a period of 2 years
thereafter prior to the release of the security device. A security device for providing maintenance of
landscaping may be waived if a landscaping maintenance contract with a reputable landscaping firm
licensed to do business in the City of Renton is executed and kept active for a 2 year period. A copy of
such contract shall be kept on file with the Planning Division.
20. The building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements,
ornamental lighting, and/or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-half feet
(4-1/2') wide. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to building permit approval.
21. The applicant shall be required to submit a revised site and landscaping plan depicting entrances and
pedestrian connections from ground related residential units, along SE 172nd St,to the public sidewalk.
The revised landscape and site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval. Staff is aware there may be topographic challenges with
entrances along SE 172nd St and the applicant is encouraged to provide stairs to the units or
demonstrate separate entrances are not feasible prior to building permit approval.
22. The applicant shall submit revised refuse and recycle enclosure elevations which include a roof. The
revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to building permit approval.
23. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian
connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to
and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building/engineering permit approval.
If this condition of approval is met the proposal would satisfy this standard.
24. The applicant shal) pro�ide detaiied specifications for all site furniture, and art, in order to ensure
durable, vandal- and w2ather-resistant materials are used. The specifications shall be submitted to,
and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior building permit approvai.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
City of Renton Department of Cor�ity&Economic Deve/opment : �arin������r►�T�2�I�o�8, b�
AVANA RIDGE PUD ' L 0 94,PPUD,ECF
Report of May 3, 2016 Page 44 of 44
25. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting entrance detailing/weather protection for
ground related units, fencing, pedestrian connectivity, lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, and/or
special detailing along SE 172nd St. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval whichever comes first.
26. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the
following: guardrails, fa�ade treatments, retaining walls, raised planters, siding, windows/frames, and
canopies. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry,
pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials approved at
the discretion of the Administrator.
HEX Staff Report Avana Ridge PUD LUA15-000894
�"`` � d[�FNDA IT #8, b)
� �
� EXHIBITS
Project Name: Project Number:
Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD
Date of Hearing Staff Contact Project Contact/Applicant Project Location
5/10/16 Rocale Timmons Justin Lagers 17249 Benson Rd S Renton,
Senior Planner Avana Ridge,LlC y�/q
9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105;
Mercer Island,WA 98040
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Plan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21,
2015j
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated March 22,
2004)
Exhibit 8 Coal Mine Hazard Study,prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated January 20,
2009)
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report,prepared by D.R.Strong(dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplementaf Stream Study,prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated
December 22,2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting
(December 28,2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Data Report,prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22,2015)
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Inc.(dated December 16,2015)
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15 Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016)
Exhibit 16 Public Comment letters/Emails
Exhibit 17 Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study,prepared by TenW(dated March
21,2016)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo-Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex(dated
March 26,2016)
Exhibit 19: Staff Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, dated May 3,2016
Exhibit 20: SEPA Determination and Mitigation Measures(dated April 11,2016)
Exhibit 21: CI 73—Residential Building Height
Exhibit 22: Elevation Perspectives
Exhibit 23: Transportation Concurrency
CITY OF
en on 3 �
� ""`'�'� .EM #8. b)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMU:.�TY CI7V OF
AND ECONOMfC DEVELOPMENT I�enton '�
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: April 11,2016
Project Name: Avana Ridge PUD
Project Number: LUA15-000894, PPUD,ECF
Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
Owner: Avana Ridge,LLC;9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
Contact: lustin Lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
Project Locotion: 17249 Benson Rd 5
Project Summary: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and
Environmental (SEPAj Review far the construction of a multi-family development
containing 74 units in two 4-story structures.The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within
the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High
Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two
separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The
subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (lOBth
Ave SE) and Benson Drive 5 (SR-515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE
172"d St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S.
There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to
west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream
buffer thraugh buffer averaging. Additionally,the site contains critical slopes and Coal
Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height,
parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed
to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with
the construction of enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
Site Area: 164,827 SF Total 8uilding Area GSF:92,899 SF
STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Cvmmittee issue a Determination
RECOMMENDAT/ON: of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M).
�; �
���
�
- <
.�, :.
� :
;:_...;.
EXHIBIT 1
Full Document
Available upon Request Project Location Map
ERC Report Avona Ridge PPUD 15-000894.pdf
......... . ... . B� �..J
a� u
, �
� �
�� •—
�_�
�
�� i
� _ �R �
. _�,._.
, _ , S� ��2�� .,,�! �:� � �`
. _ . � o
. . . , ,
t _, _ __ _ ,_ ---
. �. _ ___ _ __
� ,*. �... � .,y,�-�.�.._. _, � :,.,,M 7�,
.�.a� . ���n.� ra��_s.
.. ' "�-,a��"`-1�� ,S , � �.�e ! J ��
�i_. ` + ; , ..... ��j--���� -.�('� �- . _��" . . . �_� • �
t _ _ '
� �. ',+�dK .� - ._ �'� ; � rf.�
� 'tf�_ �,,.� ... �� ,
. AOPWmMl011Y I110ICILiH�01Y `� � � MMLB.1NM11h
�� ` X� MMI�FlIfMilOrY _ YAIIfYF1RMI�OM6 � f�
`�� O1F1011MWH4Mr � 01NWMW�EM� !
WH4
,
`�, - �' . �1 +,� �
., ...
� • • ..�--i - '�II'_ � -. . �uwu IiWI ...,�' i
; �.` �'�q:'=,Y.T;'.�. -a:;�:. �'} ; ' ' ' ��
� \ • � �: � i ' ' J'.. .. ... �.�� ` ._...�. �..... �._ _ .,; �:.�..��.���..-� �-....-...�-� _ `w
;
,
, � T . �
� � • ...v+_... ' < < c � / � . ... , .. � � . .�... .., i . ' y... , . �.. .��w��a r I
� ` - ' , x `� � 1 � �'� � I
�ti ��,.7 I � ' i (�:.• ` , �'� .� `., �i i. 1 , LJ 1 �_�..��,� � � AVAkAR10(iE
� � � , 1 � � � �
� 1 i � � ..a_,1�I � `.. ��� � '' .f ' -/ PLANNEOURBAN
` 1: k
�� .
�
s . ,�j - , , (� ,.� Y��, DEVELOPMENT
O ` < ,
�:} � < < <��,� /
� ' -'/�i 10816&E 172nd
.
,/ � STREEL RFNfON�WA
O � wrw�w _`, � �� 98055
� ��. `•'�� O` /
,� / � � I
� ,�: , � AVANA RIDGE�LLC
�� �/o
s , _ ., ___ ___..
- � ��
f �....�..�. r«
. __.
. ,
� •.
. .
,\ : �. ....,a., �
•� ,��-:: ... .
t� ` . , �.n-- -
, �;.� � .. � . ;:
. .
, . _ , .
.; , �,- � - �.... ,,�. ; �
. .,
, �
�_ �,� , _ , .._., �
_ ,. � �
_ �
, . , �
.
��►,► �.;,\ �, _^ .: !` •
� ,�; � NORTH n
c� �, _ .,�,,� ,� �✓; . �.,,�
. �..,,
� a�.or��;� �
�. m �
\ - - . " StiE PLAN�
t
EXHiBiT 2 ..~�_�-�,'.';/ n
w���
WGMYf!'Y4GNW:MIWrt �AWVIYI�N . . ... .. .. . •. ..•.... . . . . . .. ���.. .
�
�
�r
i
! � •
'��, �
0, '
�
���� , • �
�d
t'�'�`E�'�~i"y'��- �s -�c %//.. � /. .��
� � �
�'� t,v'�T.��dl�tli�ll�`�fldAlaRi1111�iYlc�+� r'�+�O�.O�OlII[i+1�1lltalf1i�11Y�+A
�i g�Yl�, �•r . � _� -' = � r-•
_,. r _� - . . — �,. z(��.` �.`�;,,i'�,�����, �y r•s,��titi P ,.'.`J��S..S�
'n:c�- ,,�; � ' �.:�J ` �r, ��:/`. �"?�ti�`� ♦ �� ' "s^_3..�'.._*''-' '_ _ ' �r ....
,.� � •:�. ■
.��'a� �.+�� Y y�,� ~ � � '�t �' � i� I� - �� � ,��y '�t��,
�� t,� �•�,t 3d �� 1 ��.
�q�� � ;�j� ^a ��� ♦: � � ��{��
ti �
:�y��� ,k+.�`• v � I ' �'
�y�,i !� ���
1YU4 � ��i-. � �i��� " �DJ1���1����` .� '�i'`
�,. .
` �+y�. � �......rr.- ,_ -_ ._ y - 3�, .
��''` "'ei"�� �� �� 1;� �1 ���''s f `,
.k r ..,
�M y> �3>�,•� SyFa�eyic�.awrlqK�aa�a vii+f��''���'�� � �'
� ��'tb"._,,, l� ;�G _ "�' '�� ��?� �r•/�� ---
. 3'w'k yl�r: � �' .i � ���1,�,..�".�..,a,o.`�'.*,S' ���.f/ � �' • �
\,����6�..r1.. .�._. ��l�'-- . , _ �'' ...�,b!, ,'/J� +.,,1 �:'•,;�" ' i
� � �° M f �.. tlg.��.) � � �
.'Q'�6�"_ (g,x �''R��. �r �,p.���M� �iJ!i.�l�s JT�,a 11.�M.�
, �� i� a� ��
��y`i`y� � u� ti y�fi:
�Y�� i� . ,[1 �
, ' � � _ �� �,�'�p,
�► �T� � . �,�-�� _ `.'�;��
�� � �`���, s=;� ,,� , �,,
�,� ;,,:� �°��","�e'��"`<;�: o�" �� �,
�'� �r-. «a�y `•, � ��. q�,'��,;�
�d�5r �H'����� w�v"` "'_ �'�~���� '
�'e°�,!" r:,, _ �,�V r��__ .
. `����v�y�,Q'�� ...,� ���y>/��
._"�",���'p� .�ti.,l..:���
d�,� �.� c, �r��,''�n'�'r' �' ^,5`� , .
, -�� ��,�'.,.�.r r,� -�•
i� .��,y,� ��'�c ,+ � .� %�� A
� ,n,. �Y
� � b� ����i�
., ' yi
�. � ��`.
� :
Full Document ___. -_-
uest ---------
_ . _
_ -- __
. _ _ - - -.__ _ ----..—.__-- ____
, pvailable upon e ____.___ __ _ _____ ---_____ _
.
_ _ _ _ __.___--,
', $� +.�
I w` i E� u
j �•; `:% ;,,,t
I ` ' `:s' +
_._..._ _._...� I
r_ ._� ,...._._ .., -_.._, , , � �--�
-- � - -- - t._.r._.. .. .. � �
. - . � _ . ; , -� �_ ..r.__,
' u,;::: , . : �.. _ f �� �
; _ ; ; :`�: „�„ ,, �,( �� f0
. _i �--__,__ _. ~ ` " '
,- ,, -. _,
;— __ , 3 O
� _--- ..__� , ,
� �
_. _ O
— , _ : _, .--- �
. '�� ;,� � �
" w�. N»: �
�v vu�n ov�wu,G e�vAnon_ _ ___ �■
: f4E.YM'+1.G• �.__.._ _.�.
~ HN' ' �
� i1
� .4 >>. I
' r � �. J
, Af�A.S� i81 C1(C.2;C.3 C6,iC.fl"D'�D.S� �E�i`F� iF3! �.6 i�,`. _. , , r" -� i �
�y� ,
� � . . , � ,_ . H;H1XH3; iM� �t, `�S, J;J2�J3� ;J.6 J6;K{K5 � L,:s.M�' rN1 ;N.51ip �
, , _ _ _ .. .. ._ _ } �
I
� �"—^.+- .�� .t=2
..
� � i ��--.. . �. . T't :1 -
...._ , . .-:_ -
_��
. --- . �:.
-;� • _ _, �. � .- _� , .._
� � -_----._.�--
, [.,..; J V
._,, , .
_. _ ; ..._.. A /1NAR
i a�`n t' �:�! _.�_ q�,._ ;__;. ; l.�, s.�. __.. 'p� I
� a� � r� . . , ._ - �.L. .,. , . . .. _, .:_ � , .._.. DEVELOPI�
i P1�"' "' .-..� _I . Nj
,__
- ,._, _.. ,. ___. , •� .
i �� � : .. , < : _ ; 'oa'�°se'�arr�aroN,w�
, • ..-- — 9eoss
I J ' J
" , -
:. � ; �;,� -
; ,-� _ . ..�
I �VE�pA�L.t11E-30UTNELEVAT19N_ . _.__�2_; ; t
I � � N
� „a N -� AVANA RI ,
� , . . . .... �K5�1 K J. � � _ "' . �
� o�(NS; �N; iMi.�; �ey�a�l�3ti�.2;`�, - , � i''� __ _ -----
�!;� DGE L
_ . . . .. . � •... _� '��;5 I.:. ;H 6' ;H.3; ,H t�!H; ,G� �.H�: �p 4\, �F�°� , �Dl�q�C 61�C 31�C 2�C�; �� 1 p i r'�' � r�.��w�u..
i
, . , .. , . . . .. . ,_' .. __ _ D:.4...'\.. \_,� �..,�.; \�Bi � „5.�A� i "'°.^.' �' �.'�°.,
� j
�. ....: ...._.. __ . .
, ,, �..,� :_l._...... ...,,.....� I Mu�� .�,.
�L � � 1� •
i .
' �- �.... .�; ( �
. ',�` r r� . �
� � ...�. �. --� ..� i . ,� . , �
, .. ��, . � __• . �- ...- --
,
� �_��� � i�.r,�_..� �"T-'�� i �
'.� �� � � �^–��+ _��i' , ��.
,, " .� .� .. �.....� � �]
;.,.� ...._ -"_t - + ^ � ' . '. r- ,A..+ , � �\
.i
._... �., � � .
.. . • I .. . . �.�.1•i�J . i� :' .._ _"_
� ��_... .T I
, ._ _. _ .... m _..�
, � z �. ; �.
�..._,. . w . r�; , ..,,_.�.
; . _ ,� �..�,.
,
---_ �
: �_„, .e,,,� Z--__
.� � oveRa
`��— pROdE�
_. .,,,. ..,_� ELEVA
� �
� ;,,, ' '____-
� � K IIMII��
- - OYEgALLBRE NORTHlLLNAtqN 1
aw��en�cr.r��naw�e�wa—ininin _....___._. ._.___,._._ _ .__.
. _... ___.. ....._..."' I
EXHIBIT 4 _______.:-- �.�.,�,a --__ ^___� _�_�---� !°��._
00
�
X
sw �/4 sEcn AVANAHRlD�E NGE 5 £, w.M.
X �-
X ��
� _� "-- �._ �— � \ _...
x �_ �. �� \ _.—
X - '�
x .a. \ _ _____' _.------
.����� SEl7TNUSTREET ..__. _-- _ �----
-�. -
�• `� 4 '� - `_-- - =- �� - . - - - - - - -
__
_ ___ � _ �
�
- -�-- _ , _ -
-� - -- � - -- - - -
�:,,�.- --- -- - --
,� _ . _ _ _ _
r.;
,- -
.
-\ _.__ , . , _....: ,_:-
, �
W W �--� _`,�`' �` � - `
_
_
� r - - � --- �
. � r ... ,. ._ --
. � , �
� o . , �--- _ _
`
� , � , . -
.
_ _- ,. �. -
� . : , _ ,._ . _
, .
.._, j,.. � - ; . � ,
Q ,\ ;. � � _ _., i. � �sreuxvnva i �
a �,\ 1�_-�- wFsreuaan�o
.\ `\ I+
�� ,.�. �. , , /
� ,� I
� -�- , � - - - = - -- -._ --
. . , �.: 1
. _ ._ . , . . . __ —
. . :.-1 , . � xi
� ' ` •—• -- -___ __
•• . '�.t i����� f' ��, r. , ' �, .- ...�.
, �. .y � � , _ _ t__. --i..
� �'.
�. �-.._ - __ . _..._.._ -: �
..,
. _. _�s ._. __ _ : 1
� �
� ,�, - --- _ �� ;� ��,¢
. �__ .. .
,• _ _
, . �. , .�f- ' ---- - - ' _ �„ �t�'�o
,�
, - _� ':
. , ��.-, q,• ` . .
-- -- --��., - ��--- � _ _ " _"' �I �
.. ��
\ ��• \� , _ .. -�� ��D:�t.hn'�y � \ , � �. / �.ar•
. Y
, ,q� .f:�� � �
:.. .... �,; . .: ; �"' ;� "„�-r'`,�`, � � �,,
� . -- '. ,
., .. . ,� -�:t:_ _ ,--�'--;. .�� •
, : , w.,. •�zrr-�v.:�cr�.:,�u�^.�y - ,�,. �i i
� � _. . . �:, %
PRF)Y1NNY O1i N71llYF dLC�rIAQ4S �\ . . . � •�ya . . �� ,�'
i��i ra�� ;M�i � ! ,��,�/.
.. ', :
wra ta�� i rwa ��cy, '44,. .. . h . �y ' �..
L
�X. q /
n�w��irn�aa��ra�nwc �'Ki . . " " ' . �
aw�.cs��a�aw�wr i r°v iu�� �\ . ' . � �
�wi.i.�.or..a�•s r�.�c �ea+.ur . ��R �
.c.rv. ws�.ao. o ia nM••�i s . . . , �
'4_
�.�,� ,�.� � � '� �
'r,.r♦ . t
�RA� NOIFS -� �
.R.... .,W;��:w� ���,, � �.� .
_.�.. � � ._
. �. �.�..�.r.,��._.�..�.,� , C��L�y-_� �, �. ,�,
.�1O�w`a w'aw�•i.rr+wo...�vowo.sx \\% . !t4�i � ep ' � �i. .< ._,..
lEG�NO �`� n�u sr �•
i 1 �
aai.� .reiar w. � l .
� m .�.. � ,� � .. �\�` ti� '�� � � �..
� � \�:�� , � .��� •' .. �
: V �
`\ - , � �/ �
� EXHIBIT 5 � � ��-� ���� ,
� �� � � /
�
, �� ..
; �\ •� � ,;:y, �'' fVp��11L
+ ���-�y,��-' . ,�a
Ee
� nc�.
AVANA RtDGE PUD +�•+�
j "•••.•••o•••••••��• ' � �.-. .::� G1avAscAi��wo�Al9FR.4 --�� ` o�o ..::.:•�. � R�vTpN CANC9'TWLaRAOrloPtN! �
� urur.����.vr�ta. I �� ��,.� .I, r�w�+w iwww m f:�,� MII'll aonn��npJs�,.�ay/r���.o�W.
�oinio.o�rv �'' �n�w�wi..� �rw. xe� 9+ wi[ wPn �.� �
w� �
e
oRs veo.ccr ra. ,som A—N
�
OO
a'
'`.�1�< J 1� ,� ��"
.� ( .`.,, ;
',� ,i.
, � -- ,.
,�,��.
`'n.�k � � •
�'=�., :�''�,�,�` -,
....
.; :,t,�K � +j; � � � �
� ��
� Carth �.�:� ��� ,v
�.. ���. t , . .
Solutions ` �, . -
NW t_�c. ''� � _ �::,.-_ � � ' -
: ,; _ .;,, .��•
•�- . , . • 3,_
`�'' � r- ,- -
.:y:.- �. '. - r - . -
> ` _'� .�,F t� - �- .
-� _ - � �. - ti'�.ti - ` ya e �' .
� _ ,1 q� I :��• _ �Z .. .. �. �` .d . . _ .
� . . . • ��T
�
� 1 .
�c�� yJ` �T/r�Y� ,i� .� -
� 3 = � ,
t ,�fi! ,LL:� '1 - � i
�x; ��
`-; ve s�s ti� �� I � fi'� *''"�..
�� t' 'M. .
`� �. , �``.°. . __
�t�v►, �. ` � , �r . � , _..�--� — _---_.
� . � �
�r,r � ;
•t" �- r„ r . ' ..
.� t-`r i.
. �.: .. . -;r --..
� �F � � ,.
- ^-�-.
_ !
.. ' � � ._...-..,.... , � .
.,.�,� �. � ...
1 � - �
r �� �� '���;�t.�_
.��� ,'�.. �4 3'.^.. p ..�. i 1 '1`'`
dv � ��,f"�''`�", -�'��, �;.
�#' 1 r ��`�
" � �'"� � ',� ';�r�}�f.''�t`�� �'`
�:
a�. , � s�. � S�•` yy �`c` %<
�' ; °r' � � �7 ��.�.�..�,,, ` ..r-. , �,,��Tr-
�
.r,F.. t. . ♦� .J r� i� f' �' $r :.3�
T d ..L'r'
� I ✓ '" ���� �� - .�. ��r �r
:Iry ��' �ys 1 � �� . '\i � J��
.i+ii- �`�-*��� �,,~.�,� ► "� t �r -'G`
.y� � Z . r - �., t ,s ;�
- ,�-.�� ��. �,.f:-�..s,�� ' c1t',t a �'F. "-
<� t'r..�,..,•""` �'y�'L"' rrn-��#."� �J�"�
��}� � ��,.�� �1��•
�,.-:z t�e �
Y `"`�_�""�-�?'r��t'.
- .�3�-.
� � , ""''"�.+
� ,
� � , � �
• • '+�ry"'�.
�- , �� �
���re:.°.._rt, .,�..
��
: �
"'- �•�k�� ..
� .�"p!! �� `���• .►. �: r.
, �.. � � .�#� Ar - �. 1�p� .+�'(-�-`�.f' . � .
. .. e. . .,(^'AI(f`! *. '����� � �`'��_,,� �� .i.e- 1; �'
'�.I'f��- i.� <��1��.�"�s..'+�'��, .''r -„�. y'� ` "R`'-�r �y .
�:r��'R�� _ '� . �a��Jy h'+*;, ,�'_, � yt�.' P� _ ,.. 'O.
#s7F' �'r .7� ��f � .
r"' x ti ,
� + � .
�►- .� ,� -�,
' �+'' `"'�' AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
� . '�s Full Document
Available upon Request
• Report -
Geologica!Engineering Services
Coai M�nE ga�rd Assessment
Cugini Property—Na��west Parcel
Renton (King Coup�,), �ashington
. . March 22,ZOA4
Project�No,.0336-004
1°repared For:
AIe�Cugioi
Prepared By;
�cicle Creek Engineers,In�,
EXHIBIT 7
)
Full Document
Available upon Request
Report
Geotechnical Engincering Services
Proposed Property Developmeat
Springbrook Ridge
King County Tax Parcel Nos.
2923059009 and 2023059148
Reaton,Wsshingtan
January 26,2009
Project No.0336-004
Prepared For:
Alex G�gini
Preparcd By:
Icicle Creek Eagineera,Inc.
EXHIBIT 8
- � , � �F��'�M�1�'ll #8. b)
available upon Request
Preliminary Technical Information Report
(TIR)
for
AVANA RIDGE PUD
17249 Benson Road S and i0615 SE 172"d Street Renton,Washington
`�'C�P°FEvw�s S C'�
C.��.yP .• �'T t�
Z
�
�� �
�o»s �?�
�SS��NA�o��
�a•G7•'�j�/�
DRS Project No. 15088
Renton File No. PRE15-000611
Owner/Applicant
Avana Ridge, LLC
9725 SE 36th Street, Suite 214
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
Report Prepared by
� �
D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc.
620 7�h Avenue
Kirkland WA 98033
(425) 827-3063
Report Issue Date
December 28, 20�5 EXHIBIT 9
m 2015 D.R.STRONG Consuking Engineers Inc.
�� � ` � AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
.����
_ ^-- '� Sewaii Wettand Consuft� ,�(nc.
-_ _,- ------ PID Box 880 Phor�2�3,859.�575
Fall Gty,WA 99QZ4
Fult Document
Available upon Request
December 22, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36� Street, Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA
RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study-Avana Ridge PUD
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job #15-159
Dear Justin,
This report describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams
and buffers on or wi�hin 100'of the proposed Avana Ridge PUD project in
the City of Renton, Washington (the "site"j.
:� .
;Y
� �
4 •
,-'`�
♦ '
�
'�.L��... �
b�
II
�; -.�
^�.:
��
�
.,. „�,�._ �t
? r}065�
t y�y
i}...�"... .2a:.....:...
Above: Vicinity Map af site
EXHIBIT 10
_ J
c
SE172NOSTPE� _------- �
— ___�_ �
��'_� "' _' "T" _"r'"'_"'_=_'__'=_— ,'� �
1
•� , _ �
. , � �
�� e�s�eww� I
yy(ST BUItqNG
�� 1
\`� I ' __ a
\ �3' I � � I � � I ', i . I�_�I � I � ; I � i � ' �
�
� � ii � !
� ! i i
� , � i I I � "� i � Y
.
� � i • i � —
` j �"` i
.e�io � ��9 , , 1 � , { � � i 1 � i
iuurlm 'pA �+�r'A?' . i,%,s�. / Z
[oMinlM wn�wl:l rmr ��/' ..
v� Q
. . . . . .. . . JJfi� ♦ i /�Y :f-l��ji' ��W 'r �. / �' ..1
W � '
�mwwu�po�vn�xa�ome.ui�wrt�urrs � ` •:•✓L ��� r 'r kFc�/� '1 ` / �' Z �e
� �����--- ��,1 `� ,,, �*� ,- o �
� s.usrsnr�uwrruKoicroY �` � � 'ti►,yy��j5c���� � � 3
1 �I
� 4ft)vsl�f.wwn�lNNa4 �\�--__— `��` ��' `..,��. y 6$ 7�
� ' ��
11.Y�{f[WMKiMlM MMrtY�{-LI WIM)1 `\ `� g r
�\ �$A Y
um..aK,�o•.wrra�wnua�ow-nerr.r�.. �\ �� o 0'2 3 ��
+ v111[Yr44WLATYNRIINMRflil0141�5[Ioei4lli -__ e!' W S� �
l! �/ ry �
Y� �y�
�\ �� �,, Wr�r a Q�� m
��� �� ' s
, W
. �
�, .� �
.__ �
_ �
� �
- --_-- -- - � � �, ; t'.��......,.�..�..--
� ' ..,,�;_ j ��?� P��HEET INDFJ(: '� i � �:
i �new�sa�wswuoohn�a.mm� ' I �
._ r— � M���i��� n.xiw�w.w.wnna.n.u.winwce � � � .
\ -:,. . . - -- � ��
, ._�_ i .
� .__. _ �— _ . . ���:_ �. .
. __ .. _. - .- ' i �
____--' °° �;;,, ; - , k � � f , i
� '{ � >' � MITIGATION PU1N NOTES: �I � � � � I (
iM..
� � . CONSTRUCTIDN SEQUENCE: i � � 1 �, i ,
t �'� i nruww�naau�w�rww�oin.uwwomwuiumm�iuw � � � i
GENERAINOTES: '�"�N10�w0"�"°"��^"��"�'"�F"����°�'"'�'- (
� ' IY[INYWAYWfiM+oU.fd11KlCIIMMqtINN�BNMWIil01p1 �� I '� i ,
� . '� / �.ruaw.mnwumru�w xuwun�wcuxwr.r.rartrron:nnv+ws. '
�.�wuesr.wo�ntwr�[<wnwrtnourmrawrtwnwwe�unana 111LLCOMfI4KTOMYWaYNl1CC0�M�uwIMOIYM�OIfYNWO[S � I
\� ..��r. .�� ... -. ��� r aw. anw�waunu�nreewwnm1ana�a. �
i.m�tt�ana�wswnowa�irm�wmw.uu�wan.a�-i. �.rwan[nu�o�xrcoinrrinn..�wi<wsuwmwwnwawun �I �; , ��' ''. I
w�w m ruwrwruumx.raw�numnMwmsrmrne w�rtwuwuuow1a�mnnna�u�aer.owiw�ro v`n�+wunaus N M[lO�fTW[IM4M1p MY�WL»N QMMR MIOIME mM1�K�04
�MflYYOWMIO. Y1•Y• 'C Y6Y MMiW i F I�• � �II Y t h� I.NtlTWIN1MMM�fIM(LIFRT. A�LbYR1MitIW6MYii�fOM�MIAIYRWMf1Y4UWMpNR110NRW � ����L�
21i11�OpWtfWl�fMMO+l0f�M111[Nt MONfSF
t.M�¢rw�1p114W Of r1Mllf yl LNR ll.
L IFI[ONiYRA1MMl1ItlS�ONSr1FM�M0YlOW��10[01M1lfN1YM0l. O�MIMR.
�!!$�1$.� �nwuruaannra��orme WlM1�tMfilMOrtCiMWwWMf.N�GiK.viunolNMr�tO�o IW�MK���OM. OEO�R Y
a �lou�lorY0wlNOiWmeWuolJm�fYUM[Motwouo[:wN�MwiwMK10�MGUYI�MOWfL04r�tarlM �RibulaMorERM�M4NGLLMMOLvmaM'1MIK.welo
woarwoTxiw.ro.naaw.wwxwtuarrrutiana�ta�wuw,w�w+n.aunoNo�aw +�ewenr�awun�mwo�warowwitxow��. rwnn.wnmwwaanxwm�n�ruro+w�rtarn�evur C�Mr�1wlF SItQ1�p�
f111NOYi1�1Y[OOIQW�iMIOWW�WIIRIMMDYfWONYWl�O0.rWwlWM�VADfOYK 40WI�[�TO[CMNT[ISWLLIIY0�11WIfOtl1'IpYlrtOw MIOWMO��IMWW�.'eLIMWW�MII�ITIt1YNf[�YQMY�VHI 1M9MNIIKYI�II�IYGlYs1aM1Yl1IMOMYR
� a, no�unr�owo•riarae�mra�anxxtwmeAuu�twrwaw�w�wrr�oYn�rtuwnmw�oa��uwwrm� � ++u.rxawuinw�crinwaw.rown�rrcmmar unuiriauiwawoowu�neiu�w�now�ownwuuww4wwx� NOX�O
rm�awmanwnwiunairna+fruwos ..fwena�mn�nuunnnmtwrwwrarwixoe+nn
wwr�o�rm-.ow.r a��oowwm. �.canuna ro wwne�n.un r.raMwn uw�euamwa av�rt�. wnwa n�t ne�waar+io�wo�anwcwo mMmnMa
iNUI1lMMMiFMAMQtO�FN10Yi0[DAOWMII ,.,,,��,,,,,,,,,,,.�..,.,�„„,,.+�,.,,,,,,,..�,,,,k .�N.,�.s��....w�..���..�o..�K�,.�. Control, es
I � NOXIOUSWEEDCONTROLREQUIREMENTS: ����o�rz�,rt,�,da��. canocra�u�rcawownr.u�curw�xn�w.aor��ca�mm� 1OG110XNbMMM�6lYIM1YO.M(O.M1pl0[�1LYF�YSWRMp.
- .owa�iww.w ,w.o(ownuwimea.uviunurw�ionrsrrawn�a. � � �
, � s �o �
. ..... ._ . . .. _.
EXHIBIT 11 �
a�
�� d'.:# � AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
�►�. .,.�,- - -,,��:. .:;;:r�
_ t Sewall Wetland Consulting, lnc.
-. -.--- PDBax8S0 I'hor�2�ii-�15
Fail Gty,WA�6024
Fuli Document
Available upon Request
December 22,2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge,LLC
9725 SE 36�`Street, Suite 214
Mercer Island,Washington 98040
�: Habitat Data Report—Avana Ridge
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job#15-159
Dear Justin,
This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment
for the Avana Ridge project.
�� '� `
a
�e"
�
s
�
.or
.�
� " ,
` :•.
°�_
"`w
,. Y,� ,.�
,` �10650
} !�^ ..
Above: Vicinity Map of site ,_ �. . _.
EXHIBIT 12
� `� AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
�
Greenforest Incorporated
Full Document
Available upon Request
December 16, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St., Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
RE:Tree Inspection;Avana Ridge PPUD, Parcel Nos. 292305-9148,-9009; Renton WA
Dear Mr. Lagers:
You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My essignment is to inspect
and assess the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. I received a topographic
survey of the site from DR Strong Consulting Engineers, showing the locations of the surveyed trees. I
visited the site on 10/15/15 and inspected the trees,which are the subject of this repo�t.
Neither parcel is developed.The site has a SW aspect with a stream delineated through the center of
the site,east to west. Both parcels are covered in native vegetation, predominately deciduous tree
species with moderate to dense(ower understory.
TREE INSPECTION
My inspection is limited to visual observation from the subject parcels and the rights-of-way. Both
health and structure we�e evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the
way the tree is put together or constructed,and identifying obvious defects can be helpful in
determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation.
No invasive procedures were performed on any trees.The results of this inspection are based on
what is visible at the time of the inspection. I identified the species of each tree,con�rmed trunk
diameter(DBH),estimated average dripline and rated the condition of each tree.
Bigleaf maples on this site have a wide age and size range. The largest and oldest maple trees are
generally in the poorest condition.A handful of bitter cherry are scattered throughout the site,and
all are viable. Black cottonwoods dominate the site in numbers,and there are far more younger
cottonwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in 6etter condition overall. Many uf
cottonwoods as edge trees lean excessively away from the stand. Nea�ly all the smaller cottonwoods
are very slender. Although they a�e healthy and have no visible defects,their trunks are too tall for
4547 South lucile Street,Seattle,WA 98118 Tel.
EXHIBIT 13
SW 1/4 SfCAON ?9, TOWNSH/P 23 N, RANCE 5 E. W.M.
X A I/ANA R/DGE
X - - - _._ -.�.._ ' _____--- -
x ,
x : � SEITZIYl157REET y� ,�.------�—� '
`\ `. _- __ __---------- �i�-'S I J.t
- � _ _.L�. _ - �--..`�z"'�- �. -
' , - .. _ _ � � � � _ � — � � � —
� � :__ _`- . _ _ �� --
_ .
_ �� ..� , _ , , _ _ ,.a
-._ °� /
-�,�-- �
� W � ---- - - -- ---_.� h ' ?��------ `
U' � ., 1 i - . /
� � �—/�` 3sE?�t � ~ -
Z ;,- �„ � � , 3eC 3sC -
`� ,�r � X f �T�� � /
'y, ` :
� ,\ � `.., ���_ ��wFsreuan�8( � 18�� � � _ '!
,_
� -� �. ,, .�
^ � � �,
,
, � � I� - - - �
_ �(
\ . � �
, . ��t
,. _.. _. --
''1. '
-- - •
, - . _
� �-�� ' '� �
�'`�,,� , ' � ���.,� - 1 `'- , - - ' � ��� �...�-r-,--.-.-----r-�� ,�
\ �.;,_ . � �__ - -- � - �.: ; �
� � �4 � . �� �..� � --�
�\ `'� ���_. .:�� � - - -��, �- - _ .:
� `,'`� O'; ��i fx''y y+' ° —�, , ' `I ~ � *'f '�
, i , ' � �
% ' � �. ,
\� � ``-?� p ` � • {�, � �, i `, 1.���.� —/��h�� 1 ^�'I ` ,
�� � 0 . �, ,r _ � '��,:� .l_.. ' � ,�
C�� "3C �, - ,� � �'' • /
�sc eec�o ��` C'.�� r � � �, � �{ ��- , � .
�++., .f'�.k"fa"'.k�"."ol.G'�"'�' �\ �� ,•�. 1.._„� �" - �y �-ti '{ i . � / I
c .;:?r'i ` �
� � ..�,A.,�... �r �:�1 �,. ' � _
v �,r ;,�� � / �1 �
�I���O�N�4�ao.�<�N �\ ��.� . ���Z�,�,j T -":��� '.y O %' �/i
T l l h ;
�� V-
� \\ � �'It�).O/ � �z�, ���0�4��
OO��warra�.um w. ��/ �,.. ' -
� /
� �rr
`'�� � ' 1\ ;.� � � f
# O ;��.�.�,°�'�""" �� ` . _ �)aE�C �
�•, \ �
e rx�xer�xncw accuunaws \� � wy 'f /'
� ,\ �.,, � � � ,,
�_n .�.�_.. �/
: ;m_�:.,
� �Q M A....� [�I�OMIfI/'M42 . �O( 1 �
a.. , )��� � �. �
r n1R � .Ll}, //
Aau is t�ura� .... .. �\ � /
� .aS is f wwn .. ��-
Me ia�arxr�ww�s
� '\ .`�.�_� ,,
� �\ �,/r''� ' IV O� H
� . ;. � ..
� `. ; „�,�
( a xam -"�-=.-..� ;, ,.. AVANA RIDCE PUD �ss.0
> - f ' 0.R.9►Npp TAffI1ElfM10p�1NpClENIMIiPlA11
u a r+v4.wr.r.�w GOw9f.[1ry�iEMOMMEERS
4 811 � —.; � -- RtNroN
� u�..u.r���.a...o.r . Py . •••�•• m �;��={ °"IW �wa�r.urc�r�K wen.o
�NrMal'W7 �
�.. BI' OUF i1P1�1! �
�S����.��+�W
EXHIBIT 14 �
00
�
�r �'' AGENDA I TEM #8. b)
Full Document
Avaitab►e upon Request
AVANA RIDGE APARTMENTS
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF RENTON
Prepared for
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St Suite 105
Mercer island, WA 98040
Prepared by
�����
o ��
N RTHWEST
TRAFF�C EXPE�4T.5'
11410 N.E. 124"' St.,#590
Kirkland, Washington 98034
Telephone: 425.522.4118
February 2, 2016
EXHIBIT 15
Full Document
Available upon Request { ""� : '�+' AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
� E � i
� � � � �+ F� c �• �
� F m � � � o � v� '' � a, l°
F F LQ � ` '� °' ao �a .�°
� e 2 +r � $ � iur F� y°' 4 '� F �F 'r m �. m3�+
,C � q � � O �1 +r `�+� �+ � ip i Q� �p �o
� � � � � � C i $ o � i 4 C Q .F �
� !�N h O = Q� � Q Qi'
2 m ~ r r m
n a� .�
� Z �
a Hiranaka Daniel 1/31/2016 E X X X
b Radtke Juliand Mike 1/31/2016 E X X X X X X
c Moss Molly 1/31/2016 E X X X
d Ridenour Daniel 1/31/2016 E X X X
e Brooker Emily 1/31/2016 E X X
f Goods Doug 1/31/2016 E X X X X X
g Byrnes Genevieve 2/1/2016 E X X X
h Miller Jerry 2/1/2016 E X X X
i Yadock Wendy 2/1/2�16 E X X X X
j Heine Molly 2/1/2016 E X X
k Cantu Caryn 2/1/2016 E X X X X X
I Reitz Phillip 2/i/2016 E X X X X X
m 6ray Andrew 2/1/2016 E X X
n McMuflin Kimmie 2/1/2016 E X X X
o Murphy Rhonda Rae 2/1/2016 E X X X
p Hanawalt lody 2/1/Z016 E X X X X
q Skulstad Paul 2/2/2016 E X X
r Faas Mark 1/30/2016 E X X X
s Cramton Dawn 1/30/2016 E X X X
t Hanawaft Jody �/7/2016 E X
u Miller Jerry 4/4/2016 L X X X
v Yadock Wendy 4/5/2016 E X X X
w Cantu Caryn 4/6/2016 E X X X X X
x
Y
z
EXHIBIT 16
. Full Documen�1 •� qG � #8. b)
Ava�lable upon Re�,.�est ����
7ransportation Engineering NorthWest
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 21,2016
TO: Rocale Timmons,City of Renton-Current Planning,Senior Planner
FROM: Michael Read,PE, Principal,TENW
SUBJECT: Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Study-Peer Review
TENW Project No.3462
This memorandum documents my review of the Avana Ridge Apa�lments Revised Tra�c /mpacJ Sludy,
February 2, 2016, prepared by TraffEx, site plan and site access/frontage improvement plons prepared
by DRS Consulting Engineers, and field work conducted in February 2016 related to existing site frontage
conditions, availabie sight distance, and a general field conditions to address trip distribution questions
outlined by the City of Renton.
Avana Ridge TIS Peer Review
The following is a general list of assumptions, methods, and conclusions l have verified or recommend
verification and or modification in review of the Avano Ridge Apar�men�s Revised T/S, February 2016:
• The study applies standard trip generation rates os pub!ished by the Institute of Transportarion
Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual, 9�h Edition, consistent with standard practice.
� The trip distribut:on assumptions appear reasonab"e in general, although the overall total in figure
4 only indicates 99q. The total number of trips during the p.m. peak hour however, appear to be
distributed to the proposed site access driveways. Given a majority of trips are expected to be
d�stributed to/from the south, the "equitable distribution" of estimated trips currently ossumed
entering the site from SR 515 seems unlikely given that a majority of parking access will be
accessed via the driveway onto Benson Road. A directional split should be identified between
these iwo access points that reflects the "circuitous route" afforded by SE 172"d Street versus the
direct site entry onto Benson Road for both entering and exiting traffic. Also, the trip distribution
figure should be adjusted to better indicate the actual location of the entry driveway onto SE 172nd
Streef(immediately east of 1 Q6�h Avenue SE�.
• Related to trip assignment, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour tra�fic counis between SE 172�d
Street and 108'h Avenue SE should be balanced. In general, reported traffic counts at ihe
proposed site access location are directionally higher along Benson Road at 108�' Avenue SE.
Traffic opera�ional analysis should consider the worse-case scenario and given the intersection
Tronsportation Planning I Desigr I Traffic Impact&Operations
PO Box 65254,Seattle,WA 98155 I Offce(2U6)361-
EXHIBIT 17
����� � rvo�rHr�_ � �1�14.�11�'L�! #8, b)
11410 NE 12�t a�ailable upon Request
Pho�e: 425,c
Mr. Justin Lagers March 26, 2016
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St. Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Re: Avana Ridge Apartments—City of Renton
Memorandum - Revisions to TIA per Peer Review
Dear Mr. Lagers:
The purpose of this memo is to provide revisions to the Avana Ridge Traffic
Impact Analysis per the recommendations in the March 21. 2016 Peer Review Memo
prepared by TENW. The recommendations dealt with:
• revising trip distribution and assignment due to a restricted site driveway access
to SE 172"� St. and also the shorter trip length using the Benson Rd. driveway
for south oriented trips
• balancing traffic volumes between intersections
• revising level of service calculations due to new trip distribution
• evaluating traffic queues on Benson Rd. from the SR 515/Benson Rd.
intersection
• evaluating left tum lane warrants into the site access driveway from Benson
Road.
Tria Distribution and Assignment
Figures R1 and R2 show the revised trip distribution and assignment of site
generated traffic in the AM and PM peak hours. The revisions reflect a restricted
access to SE 172"d St. a(lowing only left tums into the site and right tums out of the site.
A careful design of the site access d�iveway should effectively eliminate most site
generated trips to the west on SE 172"d St. and to the no�th on 106"', 105�'and Cedar
Ave. Also, site generated trips oriented to the south were assigned to the Benson Rd.
driveway since it provides a shorter route to SR 515 than the driveway to SE 172nd
Street.
Page 1 EXHIBIT 1$
� � a rFn►r�A ITEM #8, b)
Denis Law —"'"-
Mayor Clty �f
`� �' (.�.. ;�. � � _ ; �j�Y ��!�
w�
4 � � � .� �.: � �' � ♦ j��, ♦
1
'�� ��� ��� ��� ���t��O�
April 15, 2016 Community&Economic Development Department
C.E.`Chip"Vincent,Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmenta) Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA)THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)on April 11, 2016:
SEPA DETERMINATION: Deiermination of Non•Significance Mitigated(DNSM)
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894, PPUO, ECF
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00
p.m.on April 29,2016,together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are
governed by RMC 4-8-110 and information regarding the appeal process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmenta!Determination for complete
details. If you have questions, please call me at (425)430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Cornmittee,
H✓�K��'t/y
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
Enclosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Oiviston Ramin Pazaoki,WSDOT,NW Region
Boyd Powers,Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher,WOFW
Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indlan Tribe Duwamish Trlbal Office
Melissa Calvert,Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US AYmy Corp,of Enaineers
Gretchen Kaehler,Office of Archaeology&Historlc Preservation
Full Document EXHIBIT 2�
Available upon Request
ith Grady Way • Renton,Washington 48057 . rentonwa.gov
� `� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
_..
_�- �---__
, �r► City of i ,.
, : . _ .
� � : *fi�;��� � ;•`' ����
--,—..,-.a,�,�..�*� .�--, . ,�,, ' ,r , .
, •. � �
. ..... � � � `�� � [ i �� ��"� t • � r
�
� I
� .n..,.� ..,,�'s.'...welr`. �+w. rw., �� �,� '�'� �'l,.,�,;.�•L1,
°+y�l'
Department of Community and Economic Development
Planning Division
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY/CODE INTERPRETATION
ADMINISTRATIVE Futl Document
POLICY/CODE Available upon Request
INTERPRETATION#: CI-73- REVISED
MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS: 4-2-110.A,4-2-110.6,4-2-110.D,4-2-115,4-11-020, and 4-11-230
REFERENCE:
SUBJECT: Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF)
BACKGROUND: Erratum Statement: CI-73 implemented changes to the
method of height measurement for structures in the RC
through RMF zones. This erratum statement affects the
two-story limitation for R-14 zoned properties by
increasing it to three. Docket#116 advocates for increased
height and story limits for select zones, including the RMF
zone. The R-14 zone is transitional between the R-10 and
RMF, and therefore R-14 standards are intended to offer a
compromise between the restrictions of the R-10 and the
allowances of the RMF zone. By limiting wall plate height
to 24' yet allowing three stories, the R-14 zone would
provide an appropriate transition between the R-10 and
RMF zones with respect to building height.
By definition, the current method to determine a building's height is to
measure the average height of the highest roof surface from the grade
plane(i.e., average grade). The maximum height allowed in the RC
through R-14 zones is 30 feet(35' in the RMF).The implementation of a
"maximum height" (RMC 4-2-110.A) as apptied to roofed buildings is
inconsistent and contradictory with the intent and purpose statements of
Title fV related to residential design (RMC 4-2-115). Further, regulating
the height of non-roofed structures is unenforceable by Title IV(except
for Building Code). The ambiguity and contradictory aspects of the code
exist for two reasons:
1. Height is measured to the midpoint of a roof; and
2. Flat roofs are able to be as tall as buildings with pitched roofs,which
increases the building's massing.
Ft:�CED\Planning\Title IV\Docket�,4dministrative Policy Code Interpretation\CI-73\Code Int EXHIBIT 21
i__---__ ___ - -- _ _---- --- __ _ - ----- ---- --__--- �
_- ------ _---- ------- ---- -------- -------- —-___---_ __-..--- ---_ _
s +�
� u
;� aJ
C �� }+
L11 s
�.
� 'T1 �� i
� C �� �
�D � �
_ ,.. � �
v - _ =
= o - . =� � o
� _� _-._.. _
" �p � L
O i� ■ �� � •a D.�' � � ,t���•. �i.�l�: ..�.� ' �
7v c�o ■ .-- �: � r�
� � � ' .
� ,.�. -� �,,.�_ �
� � �, �'� .
�:_.:�_�--
AYANA RIOGE
v wEste�n�y�F�c_ PLAP�NED URBA!
�S.i.BWLDINGFAC�NOR7HWE3T___.. _,.�j ,�„F. �sT------m I pEVELOPMENT
/�
� 108i8 SE t72nd
STREET.REMON,WA
� 9E055
N '
�
N
N AYANA RIDGE,LL
� ��"' —
_ � _ �.,..
��. � � �-----�
i, �� � n
' - .,r.�j M � �,-----r�-:
� �
i, � ;: .�., z
' �� i � I ZONING C -
� i COMPL�
` ; . i . WES7 BUI�
i ' ,o,,,-- ___�ies
I �
. YY�ST BUILDING FAf,YNG SOUTHEAST___ _. _T. M1EST BUILDNIG FACWG NORiHEAST .__.__.
sa.c Vl �F
A0.
_ -- -- - ._ __ ___ .___ __ __ _____ __ ------- ----_ --- --�- - -------- ---__
i _. __. _ -- __ __.__ -- - -_ _..
�.�.,..�.,En� ,o,� ,�...,.
00
- ---__- - -- ---_ ____ _ .__ _ --- - ___- _ -__ ---._ _.._ - --- - -- -�
-- ._.__ ---- __. ___ _.._ ___ __ ___ _
___ __ ____ _
a
� ``�' � AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
AN ECONOMIC�EVELOPMENT �--"""'-�+��s �`��-���JS� �"»�
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: January il, 2016
T0: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
FROM: Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager/���
�t
SUBJECT: Traffic Concurrency Test—Avana Ridge East and West;
File No. 615008865 and 615008867
The applicant is requesting Building Permits for two apartment buildings under separate
building permits. Avana Ridge East is 40 units (Permit No. 615008865) and Avana Ridge West is
34 units (Permit No. 815008867). The subject site is located at 10619 SE 1725nd Street. The
vacant site is located within the Residential Multi-Family zoning classification.
The proposed development would generate approximately 572 net new average weekday daily
trips. During the weekday AM peak hour, the project would generate approximately 40 net new
trips (8 inbound and 32 outbound). During the weekday PM peak hour, the project would
generate approximately 58 net new trips (38 inbound and 20 outbound). The proposed project
passes the City of Renton Traffic Concurrency Test per RMC 4-6-070.D as follows:
Traffic Concurrency Test Criteria Pass
Implementation of citywide Transportation Plan Yes
Within allowed growth levels Yes
Project subject to transportation mitigation or impact fees Yes
Site specific street improvements to be completed by praject Yes
Traffic Concurrenty Test Passes
Full Document
Available upon Request
EXHIBIT 23
�
.
i� __
a� a..� ',
'W � � ' �� � �
u,<
.,�: d ��
� �_�------ =--2 d s--, �--�-s--z--__�_ _. __�'--, --- � �•— �
�__I--'
_} � .. __J � �—.1'-- � � `_ � �
.� i-... � . .. , L� . 1. i�l � . . � .. I`� �€� �..� �
� � . �.�, r�� .. . .. . � . �� � 8� L
I i
;Z � ; � � � � ' �; �� "'„ �
� ' � �
W _ , � � �
, � �-_-z--r--^ "
VI ' l__s---_----�:__ __�-,.�__�_r-, � �-.__s--r-��t------ J � O i
�
j � �__r__ __r___'
jQ � � �
� � Q ,
�r pst,_N ovew�u�v�noN___ " ��
.� scue xr.rr . .... _
� � �
� � AS � OC ��C, .3 C,.B C. D �D.S �F� F.3 F.1 CG� H H.1 H.3 H lO� I.5 O J.2 J.3 J.8 J. K K.5 �� ON N.5 � I
I I
I f ' I
; -� ,
K. ,
; � ' ; I
� �LJ L) ' ; — _ . � �I
AVANA RIDGE
� , ,
,
' PLANNED URBAN
i ; , �� �. .. . �,
�� ��" _ ___ �u , , � DEVELOPMENT
; " 1 i_i. - tostssenznd �
'� E� � � '�. . STREET,RENTON.WA
._
� . .. , . ' . . , 98055
, J' _ '_, L , � r
�, OVERALL SITE.SOUTH ELEVATION I 2 � '.
��, scke ine.r.p , � �.
AVANA RIDGE,I.LC ,I
� p
� � N.5 O OO K.S K J.e J.6 J.3 J.2� 1.51 lO H.8 H.3 H.1 OH GO F.8 F.3 F E D.5 � C.8 C.B C.3 C2 OC 8 A,5 q �� �� '�
� O OO
, �`� - � ' , , � o,,, �i,
, .
� ; ��� � �
, , _ ,
- �
�P� � C�"Cy
� F - �
+�
�
�
i , � 1--;j �
�. L�f L ,.,.. �
, -- — �---� -
, ��
; ' ' ' CT� ovEwau
! ' I ' PROJECT
' _ _ ELEVATIONS
J' L '' � � �����
�......,gR..,,.��,a� ,.�.,.,,,. __ ov�u�s�re-�rm��t,EvanoN � A3.��
�,n�=��
�
.
p� -- ----- --
I�k -- �� ,�,
,
��oR►�,���o�� �� u
�. . � ,�..� �.
� �
� ., r., �.,,, ,�, _
iW „ .
m, �„ w .�,�— — ;�. ���„�-; .v
4, �� �„� -- -- —
� - -- — - -- -- � �� �
��Q ,0 9 8 0� o0 0 3 z , _� _- � -- - ��` �� �
.Q �., BUIIDRIG ENVELOPE NOTE6-EIEVATI0N6 I�YIpTES �� �Q ,'
.'� , �as.u�..�mw��W�.��.�R.�os�m�e
: »�.n��,..�w.,w.a..�.<.,..00aw�Ea..�Q
i�� . . :�.ame,.nw�M.,.�.�wn,.Ke�w.,.o:.+.,,..e a...o i�`
� i..as��wore�+..�w�....w.a.+�A,....�.o.eaeeo...��
; .a.u.:oz.a�.....c..��w,.w,,,a.�w.e-:�w�sv...� B
O� m' .7r• .� ���. FASiaLOG- e amaamfm�ws.oaG+c,�n.rt.nnrt�.cvure; •
NEICHTLMIT ' +rn.Vs.v[:��[�c+aaFa+xrc
'W - --- �--- , � o
(A �� � _._ __ . .n�-im��B ..,u ou,a �
__ _ _EA4TPQ9FiO,E-I� L� I
.:v Af_f3�"-�l
�� . ��J t � T 0 � . �..a,..�,..�«.«��:da.,�.�.�,.�...,.,«,. � .
�-.--I E�:.-JJ EABT_LEVEL ' ��
_—_ ' .��
� — - O � +�� —J� O -
_ �*_��r,�
O j O� � O�
— L - - � —-�.-.���
...� .,.. `� ; � 3x-r
I .O ..:0; � —
. , . EASTBInC-�w. �.
FA9T�IOMpEJ]
��, �.. '.., � . . . xl'-113T-V
' AVANA WDGE
� EASTBLDG-EASTELEVATION I 2 PLANNED URBAN
s`"E,"'•,°� DEVELOPMENT
�� � 1W16SE172nd ''.
� H/C� H3 N.8 �� I.5 � J2 J,3 J.8 �.8 � K;5 �j � � N.5 � STREET,RBJTON,WA I
9BD55
i . � � � �, . . .
. ,, � � .r. � � .�� ��. �I � �
•e
�. . . us �oa�
� I. '_—�..�—. � � . � � � � __—t__�_�_— NEIGI'lWrt
— _—_—_ ' nEv
•.��. ' .� O � � I_�EMT R�OOF TD_P v AYANA RIDGE,LLC
� -. _ - . - — _ Qf 11Y
�'' ' ' ' � . __ ' -. ...__ ..
I i �O �O° �C� l°�iF- O`,' 3O' �l iO` :O° Oi' ' G ! �� � I
� — ' u�i - .....� e ��� '� wr-�Evq4s ..w.i.r �wm
., I� I' is.a`�
I ' " `��° �;�° "1l'7 l°J:'. �_ � -�.Q ,��' O.
-` . . . �' .. . ' t � , �:�
� � � � � �.__ ��� g � . . i08' T� �
._. . � ._�EA9T'LEVEL�
I --- i0° �° 3v O O -� � � � O iC �� � L��I i I �s � �
_ ._ . � ...- �
-- ! �� T��.�t9
_ .
' � ;'O ;O :O O; O O 3 p O I 's� O; O :
o .
: , , I Fx..� �z
-:r . , , ,. _-. , :' �,.� �
- - —_ T_ _ _� �—_T ____ _.._ �.,,,Q
_ _ - �„�1e �..
i �, � � _ �I m>_�ra
,
° �°i �, ` EAST BUILDING �I
�� - -=- -— —-� —� -— � —--- —_ . _ —-. _ � � _y �T��r 9 ELEYATIONS
� �...�.�.. �
: C) �.. --
�.sreioc-soun��v�noN � i
srwe,�e.��v —� �n.wowvioeww��n
A3.10-E ;
�
I� - -- 8� ---- �
j� � ��eoa�uhnw.s scxmu� �� �
i �
A .. ,�, �n...,�w
'� C1 2 3 '\� `J� I�J 8 9 10 R' _ . . . —+-.. : � ..: �� �
o� „u . _ .'..." -- - `�-� �
m, �.o �.�.. ..�-�a� .�.�..,�«,�
li_ , n. ,_,a..��,� s�... y�� _
— --- _
w ,�,� --
� ��
iQ n, �. .� �„�..� �.,,��..�.� �� `
,
�Q �r '. ., � ewaraim- BUIIDINfiENVELOPEMOTES EIEYAiIONS ---__ ._- I�YNOTES �.�. �
�� � �'� �:r s NEIGXTLM�
— —- � � ' __O FMTRODFTO � �
W — - u..,� �..�.� .�.,e � � ,
° ,._° ` ° II� ° � , � o ��
� _ ��'�� . � � __ ��� _—_E1ST-�EVELS I\ w�•••. � L� i.,.
.
..'f - � �15=5�1 �..�^ .
I� ��� �U 0 LC , �� a feoFowlmra.«wr..w.o�e ar.+eee.E0.c..Gs lJ�1
�� e.em.mcrui,war�sue.,v_a
{' � ._,:.. ...._ :� v:o . .
yy�. . e. �� '
[ ._ .
_ j �_ .� __ _-- _EAST-LEVEL�� I
� . _.. pg.'T\� i..
r ,O �' O, r— ;;.
� '
, � � ; L� ;
� ��_ � ......_
i - � ---�.-i�o�
�'�—+ ]B6 9 I
F. I ,O � �.1 . FA9T-LEVEL}� .
r
... FAai BLm-� �
'��, —�_ . O � C.RME I
— I �pT-1 YJ3'
_____—___—_` __ __ EA6T�,VE_g�
` AVANA RIDGE I
�sr e�no-wEsr�evnnow _� PLANNED URBAN
' �"`E„°•_''°• DEVELOPMENT
10616 SE 171nd �
,, � � \ STREET,RBJTON,WA I
CO� C� � � `L� K.� �K J.8 J.8 C. d2 � 1.5 I OI H.6 C� C�%CH� �5 .
I I ' I I
� , , �.�
' ' �,. � .s-.� �a� a�
—_�-Z_5 - �— � I-� —� � ,__��; - - x��;��� AVANARiDGE,LLC II
� - ,
l �_��
1 � . ,,. OO _i_—t�� E F}L ' E/51ROOF10P
�. __ . � �q.«�� _"___ _' 2�'31T V
� � ° € ° o °�-–i� � o : o� �o �o o _
o ; � ; ,.�.�,
, ,_ _ _ � .._.� ,�„ �
� —_ -- _ — - --.,s-� ,
� . ,
Ec� o :o � o o .� � o� o: � ;o o �o o ��
_ � EAST-LEVELS
'... I .
I . •.. ... ___ . f- � �- , �arn
, .. : . . . aeeto�a
—- , . ..: .:�_..�---' . .., y �eMfve
�_v���__.. i_� . � _E/ST.IEVELI n I
'�. � �_i �.. �.� _ �06'T 0 I
.
~� O --0 ` O � O� i0 ; O: G' 0 �O 6 O - O. �
, � � �,�: ' ._.. ' -f.....F._. ' t... '.
, � �. .� .. - � . . � ..
,, .. _ - .. : _ � ' ......
"._ .._.. . _EAaT.�4�
� . �—-� . . -FP . "� . "__ . " EB ff II
. � : ` �,, :� ``O� � ? . O '- G,' O -SOp O 'O Q wr oc�,vc. � i
.. � .. �, x w�.
w��� - GMOE�j p� re
' ' _—_ ___" _ JM'-1�y.�J/V wie.rx
._—«-.� —_�-��__�__-�_.�___-__._���.-___'_ _..__�� ., . . TFA4T.LEVK]� �
. '. , . '.. . '�. I ]!T-TD �►srsu�.�iNc ����
-------------- --- ----------- --�-------- ---- -------�T'�-'-s
�evanoNs
P
I J �
` �
.��.. SE177PDST-FASTBWLDINGNORTHELEVATIONI ' � ��n����� '��.�
scr�.im•=ra ..,,<�
A3.11-E
�
,QO - --
�� - - �� +.+
�� EX7ERpR 1UlERULS SCHEDUIE � � ��
W , �. E,R...re.. � _ �,
, , .�m.�. �., ��„
����
!E— O� � O O O C�O , ��.�— ..,� �, _ � -- �� :�'
10 8 8 I 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 � "' �'e"'°"°°'"'—� "u'"" �.""r°"a - -
��
m. ����
�► . o.. �.o..�..,E.. "'"e °� �,.wnm.M.�..�---' .�
w.ww...6 .., -.�
—. ... --- --�_. .. --
a�� w��- .� ��� u I
,a, �,. �
�,�� �. � o� __ �.�.�. wa:r.� .«..�� .. i.w� �R..�.� �'�R L I
I..Q �. �� BUIlDINO ENVEIOPE IqTES EtEYATpNB -. ._—. ..I�YNOIES � �� (� I
Z � �" , a
W ,�,�. ,.�.Ea�.� Fw..G � � '
, �
; .�.�.��.w.�
. ���.�� . �,.���.�.v.a � o
.,, ,y . wo�:�..�.�. ^
�.x.;w�.��.o �
� , -- -�_' . .._ -- � m-earr � u...�
.�
„
BTROOFT.OPt1 +w �
i Q O; u � v . �sEa...�.a«.. �,d<.,�,.,....,�,a.«�: �
- ._ ,�
_. _ __..- -. __ . ._WEST-LEVElS I� �� I
�Ot'-T�
�� .— _ !.. O_ O .
M.EST,-�V(L�_p I
. ]BI'-9'V I
�,, � Q 2ar[ ,.
'' __ . . '. . . _NEBT-LEVELI� 'I
9eT F�
'_'___'__ ______— ..ew.+ � .
� ___'..__—_ _ __ _ _ _ _—WEST.ImEVEyL�
�
_�. __ ___ � _� _ �VG
____—____�_—__�__—____�___-�_—_ R_ .r�a u�n �
�AOE n �un ;
J)1'��1fY V
AVANA RIDGE !
� PLANNED URBAN '
wesr a�oc-enst�Ev�noH �Z �
'G'E'"�°," DEVELOPMENT
' 10616 SE 172nd �!
� STREET,REMON,WA �
O C� C� O O G v �,�O ���, O O O O C� �5
i A AS B C C2 C.3 C.8 C.B D D5 E F F3 F.6 G '
I � � �, . . �, . �, . ..- II
i Q
... � �sr emc�
� � '.. XEIGXT LNIT� Q� I
�1�'��
f ,� _ AVANA RIDGE LLC I,
- l-*— —@- --f3 —�-- $ -— -�'r
-
•, � . . � ' I . . _ wFsr o ei'e�
' � I I� ,, ° � � O; O
; . �> � E � li�I p � � C -
, I • ; O ; � ���. ,�.
„ _ �� _� � � _ _NEST LEV—ElS��^ ����r� '_�,
�� ] •_ . � ___' bt S fH�an ea� .,�,
i...Y. •� .. v
sG` � o o ,o � `� . o o� o: : � o II
_ p � �.,
... .. . . . .�1 `
� . : � � ' . . ...
��.:, '_ : „ ' _ _ . .__ �'. e
� _ .. _.___.,_ �.I ; .i �_' ' i .�.
..��_ '-.. _Y�EBT-IEVEL�I �
'..i , _ JB1'.P V
� � EG� O
, --�-
, � ._ - _ ; O O O ` � : O �i c ; 0 O
z .
._,__. _:-_
t .,u _
— ��. �_.�._ ... __'�_LEYEL—J]
..-.— aer.a•.s
Q�- - OO i � � � 1 i�t _ ; � OO : G: I � ______- --- e� ,,
= a ,._� >
. i , . . --------------- „�a..,��`�
— -—- _ _--. �,,. „.
- "���` YVEST BUILDING
-- ' I _ - --- ------------ m,•..ye ELEVATIONS
' -- - -- ____ ,—_ _ .-- —�- - - - — -- - - -----
� ��'-
- - —-_.,. —, . _ ����_�
�� . . .. � �-S .
�__���__` -- '.. J . .. � :
. . ' � �we RAM�lA1NRWOMIFX! ��
I
WESTB4D(i.S0U1H_E16VAilON_..--
. , .. soue�x=ra �i�
�....ff,.�„ � .a� ,.�,.,,,s� _ A3.20-W �I
�
.
�� I
i�
� -_
W � �� �...�
FJ(TEPIDRYAlE1tlALSSpIEdIIE �� �
\J� � ! �� O �O �.�. .. re�. ....K�« �.��w, —� _ .
1 2 3 � 4 5 8 7 B 9 10 _ _ .,.__ — --- �� a.J
� ..,.
... ,,.� ...�
.. . .. .uw. .�iw..�ow� �
� s� n cs. , ..w: �a�vct . �,�.� � I
_ ;Q , a . �.,� _�.�. r– s �
. _.__._ , ,
- —.
� , �sr��. K', ;m "'a' – ��s
IIEIGNTUMR �er n d�om �.w�nrraw�ra�p on m�wRaeevr.rw' � U
. E �ir-�y� �_ 1 ..a �.+ L '
�0 ___— __— ' _ —' `ys
I —-— «J—.- .:_—J -_-wEsramvr—"o.P� BIMIDWfiENYELOPEMOTES EIEYATIONS 1�lNOlES .. .
,_...�_� - ;,.
Z � ..xw.4 '
_ �oc.ex•
�, � � � �, i Q ' � Q
,
�
�. �..__. :_... „ .� �
,L� —- -���' ��:_.l -—-�e,.�,� � o �
br.r "� �
I� j O ;� O: C w.,d �.e ' L i
. l.�... '; �I'� i. i . �Y I
' ���. MCST.LEVE�
� 'rc.¢qEvna��nuvvn
_ _ _— �
—_ �� • m�ewwura.�rtn�F.a..w+..[�a. af:+o0.w`.�t.
_��
Q �,-� , ,�.Ea.��.,.�,.
� �� ...� -—- r �.Ea.�a�.�..P�,����.. � ,
��_' � o ..� o S�� � I
��� __ � O_ �� .0.. O �... �I i G �- NE T IEVEL3 !'�
� �W _
... �uL ��' ��-_� WEST LEVEl4�
JIl' �
4......-.� _ NESG-q�� �
� Jlt-�Y�C
, .
,, �O.._� . ..._.....� il . .. �
... ._�. _ : . ----v.Es1���r� I
' "
-----?-------` ' '. .
�. � -------- ' �e°`� ...�.,� ..��.. I
--------- �..:,
� AVANA RIDCE
� PLANNED URBAN �
�ST�6.LDG-WESTELEVATION•BENSONDR � DEVELOPMENT �I
i '
70616 SE 172nd
STREET,RENTON,WA
C� O C G� O C�� _ �O C� �O O O � J �5 '
G F.6 F.3 F E D.5 I D C.B C.6 C.3 C.2 C B �A.S A
', . ,,.. . . .. '' `�' -
.. �� U .,. � � �. .� �,, ..
m. �.� m. ti-, ; ,
a.r
��� AVANA RIDGE,LlC ',
� _�� ' . .. �.� 1 ,. . O :
'� O � • `O ��--' _� O` m� i � V WESTROOFTO.P�
. . _—' . �or 6LYv
%-� Q' ;� Q"� ;�° Cl . LY,°V�- ;� ��. � �� ;� ,C . U� .... �^'} _—_ II�
�@. .�nen aEa
� .,,..__ n..r.u�..s�..wrr �e�e.h
I- _.�..____. __,__.a.._ ..J.�. ... __ . ...�..«.' .�... '
.«.
, _- " : . .� � :5 vresr-�cveys�
—_ _ _ _
.� � j�"''�_;�' � -.. - �ot r � .
(_. O;- �", ��;�° � E.- a JI�. lJ �" IQ° _�` C 4_t
: . ... .... � :... L .�_.4 �.��. '.__ ' '� ..
... ._� _.� x.,o.n I
.. . ..- -. :: v.Esr-��.� �..vo.
_.— —._ '.r-'� ' _—_—_
. � — l91'.Y �
i. ^ . r . .:.. _
I F.,� �✓ O. ..':.O° O_..F�. �� �.� O � :O '� :. O ... �1¢ .
�I . : . .. .,..._ . _ _� . ...,
en� � �� -.. .. . '� ___WEBT-�EVEI�
_�____-�' . �.._.... _._-- �,.T .
. . � :O O [ ��� O . ;O 'O . r^, � r I
I . ` , �: v � � :..
'. _ . _. ..._. ...-
, �
_. _: . �__—__. _ .._—__—. _ _.,-. 4' NEST.LlVEL__ T�� rr. r
' . =.�'_s -.�._.� � ... _
_ — ' _—. _ ..: . ..—'_ . . —.__ . -a� ��.—_�2.g V s[E�nlu
: C ; � ��; ' �s�;�^ WEST BU�DING
t ; _ � a�r-iyi`c b' ELEVATIONS I
w:
,. . ', ' . - NE6T.LEYELI �
� _,. .._" _T. ._' _—_ .. __.._ ." ____.... _—" - .. . _—__ _. _,�-—... ....- _—... __ _ _''. . _._ � ]61�.T� �
� L„ '
� �
' WESTBLDO•NORTHELEVA110N-SE112ND5T ..-' I ������M
SC/lE�VC.PP �_ .
, A3.21-W
�,�..,.d�..,ao,aR ,e�,,..� - —
.
�,
�
. _
�
4�,;� � �
��, o�s .- � -��r����
x ' �
�� ����� _ � �M %/I•. II �_ �
—
r Y� �' �'���ii'�r��"�;�°'���aY�'&���f�.�Rti���`s 1x��1��)��u�ffi3��� ����I •
� � �— —
r '.'�4•-F,� �\_� P� 5�':r i4-d x�;.�I'�_�; ����a', *r,''a ., t '�.7'1 t�R :' �l �
��,.� � +�t : �e+� - �.��r.r^?�$.I.��',���"�?���"�� I ����'^'�a,�'+C�:=Af"�"�'?�'?����-�.�„'���}'�'"�
\ - t' i .;-�r,L.s
�9Z � �' d S �'e�.. � " �� ;� 1 ��jj
���
W-.'..'� r^� }. '� ti�-
'��' � e{'* �i b ey�
�� ` �� Y ` � 'ffi �,: � ■x J3 '�
���s��� �y` \��- �.a,'1°�i� i�---��`� s�'.'AFeY$��3d"a�� C 3 ;x�. �/ .
�_►�'l�uY� �._J�� a � . �,
� ► � �>� � Ya
�`,y��,�'`���,.�'��•� �'� ,r.a^° '�.��rocs.4`� `^�,++�:. tt'"�'�_�Cekl� -��#'��'���i��P��_A'•`` .ii �i,,
�� �,`� l ��r — � a_ �� _ 'V,A` - �,����� •.
':ii+ s:,. ,.. k�:��+�_ "`' — �' �
�
�
�• •,r �? ,,... �-. .� ....,,_. 3.
. ... .
,.. .��. ,
'{ -� . .. _ �yv�, � - .�q;4� II r� ,{ ' 1
��` ,�n I��'i
��� . � ., x�.,:� � I� � : I�I �,'�.�, � ��
, `,�� «»..w�.,�,�n, µ;�.c'' `� y' !� � �� �r :..r �� .• •,�
nrw�i+�.�a,�"�'�"`�.; c� ���r
,. :F'�y R., i� r
L.=��! f. y��)'
�f * t „ �9r
, �4X� '"" ~ ���.�.�f.
' : � • / +7'r�
.�Y�. �/
� , � �
'3 ���,,
� �/ �� , •
� � i �y ,
� � � �,
�+� bY � ��ssri �.� � �� .
� �� �' 's �-� ='�; � .�,�.�
� � .`-` �-� � >� ,:�rr�
�"�`a�.-�, �� ,-m ,�;;"� ^��' ,
.
� t `��� 4 «',� ar. �. ',�,��j y•/.�^�
�.�z ;*'�'`��'"�i:�•,�`./
,� k �
�����
9C�'��� '�.� �
I
��fi�� .
.
�
�O ___ __ _ ___. .__ ___ _ __ _ __.- -
_- -- __ _ _ _ __ ._- - - - - _ _--- _
*k ___ __ _ _- -- ffi� ,,,, ,
� , ��� �
W , ��, 'c .
1- �- .�
.�
� W
Q __ � ,
,
�� �
.. .._ --- --- ._ -- �
__ __
° . __ ___�E__fi72 N� _���E�'-
,
_.
Z � � � __- --
�, ; , , » � �
LL! � . _ - -�� , „ , _ o
, ___ ,,
� �
/A ,, ���, \ ,�..�.;:0"...wiw�.,w�_,.� — — — —} � ' , � .
�/ ,.�, �� � _����- _ �- ,� � _ _ � -�--.ar �':1
Q �� �"� � _ �ti, , � � -.-� �, - :� � �..�
� , � _ ;. .. {
.�. \�� ,\ ,�. r-r`_.t.—.—^,�„�=�,—,.�,�R�} sw��em, �--"w -, ---;=�-' '� q'. ...
� � � � � t
\�� � '. .�' r�ow�eowarar �` *•.. ..I m�a�ioRr �t �J� rw�i�LOin � '.
� �� ,�� �MULEM*elNnMa � YMIIY@IrM�B6 r ��y '. � -
� � ure�u.rure�c ��� ;� ohxavine�taiair � r.�� ..
�� -
p� +C
\�` � � x,�7ab�, � � "�}-'J4[Wf -'1�--^— ,. � �F��$ �
: �� � a . � t . �' � , .
i � �\\\�� # 5 �•• 6 �,•�. : •�: i 1 ��`k�� . .. I �'�.
�
.
`
. �.�� � .. ' . Y�\�� �� ��, 57. OP LIN �
� � \
� ` � � � _
� � .....,...
,.._ -e.�� . k .� � � .
�� � � . ,, . . . z�\ > �^
: \��
�� ; /
, � � — � � �,' I / ; / _ a._..,
`�:.� ,� " a , � s e s's . �4.. _,.+ � � 'X�c 2\� .t. �y, � \ ` Q, '/ / AVANA RtDGE
� � � � �,� ' ' �,A �, ` � P NNE R N ,
O '•�`� ,�.� ,���,. s t�r v,�i,.� �� .;.:r ...��a LA D U BA
�� °�.� i DEVELOPMENT
� xY �-t c d C.... ' .,, �
�`�•.. � :�l; 10fi16SE172nd
"�� STREET,RENTON,WA
�.`\ ♦ 98055
� O �\�-$, '� � - - �J �'�,
�,.�'9p4e � / '� �
.�� %.
IL. `;, � �;:,�� O � � ���
� � � : -� p _
:,, ;�
� AVANA RIDGE,LLC !
�. � � ; �
cS' ` � ,. , � - - -- -
: �,,, �. �a� # ;,�,�
� � � �'i '�h""�i SZ Y � W�wrr �'ur��
� • `\\.. "."A,���'�t �`, ��Y�4 _ /,�/��' !1 � .
� / � � � � *:���� � /��' �� �� ��
� � � ;. 4� ,�, '
�. ��� � � { '�" ; ��...'� '' ,�'' i,� �
� + ,� �;;;
� � � ; , � < �� �;% j� � ,' � �
, �` � \;� "" ��,<f ,�' i ,�' � �
�� '/ ,, I
,
.
,
�. \ . ' � � i NORTH
. � .
.`
� i
i
., �\ 6f.00 pR�"pp�� ,'/' ./� � L ,.
, �
_
� � ,__ �i�/ �// � :
� _.__ __--"j' SITE PLAN PUD
�����M
I A1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUN�Y -� � M #8, b)
Ren�on ��}
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---- � _
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT
ERC MEETING DATE: April 11,2016
Project Name: Avana Ridge PUD
Project Number: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF
Project Manpqer. Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner
Owner: Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36`"St,Ste 105; Mercer Island,WA 98040
Contact: lustin Lagers;Avana Ridge, LLC;9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105; Mercer Island, WA 98040
Project Location: 17249 Benson Rd S
ProjectSummary: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development and
Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development
containing 74 units in two 4-story structures.The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within
the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F) zoning classification and the Residential High
Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two
separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The
subject site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th
Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR-515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE
172"d St between the proposed buildings, and another entrance off of Benson Road S.
There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns, bisecting the site which runs from east to
west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream
buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally,the site contains critical slopes and Coal
Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary street, building height,
parking, design, open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant has proposed
to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with
the construction of enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
Site Area: 164,827 SF Total Building Area GSF:92,899 SF
STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a Determination
RECOMMENDATION: of Non-Significance-Mitigated(DNS-M).
_�. �
#��"
, r
s..
�:�
� y -
P�oject Location Map
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Community&f�omic Development _n�vironrrl�Pitb711r+1►A,d�C rr rrlitle -�A�i��' ��
AVANARIDGEPUD LUA1S-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 2 of 13
PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development(PPUD)and Environmental (SEPA) Review for
the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units, in two 4-story structures. During our review,
staff determined additional information was necessary in order to proceed. On February 15, 2016 the project was
placed on hold pending receipt of an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study. The applicant
submitted all necessary documentation and on March 30, 2016 the project was taken off hold. Submittals included
an Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21, 2016 (Exhibit
17). In addition, the applicant also provided a memo, dated March 26, 2016, in response to the recommendations
included in the secondary review(Exhibit 18).
The project site is located on the northwesterly corner of the intersection of Benson Drive S and Benson Rd S. The
site is triangularly shaped and consists of two separate tax parcels (Parcel #292305-9009 and #292305-9148),
totaling 164,828 square feet in area (3.78 acres). The site is located within the Residential Multi-Family (RM-F)
zoning c{assification and the Residential High Density(RHD)Comprehensive Plan land use designation. Surrounding
uses include: a daycare facility abutting the property to the east (zoned RM-F); existing single family residences to
the north (zoned R-8); southeast of the site, along 108th Ave SE, a vacant parcel (zoned RM-F); and across Benson
Drive S,to the west, uses consists of multi-family,public storage,and a dental office (zoned CA).
The subject site is currently undeveloped with a ground cover of second growth conifer, deciduous trees and brush.
The development would be comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of
20.21 du/ac. The proposed 74 units would be comprised of(28) 1-bedroom units, (29)2-bedroom units,and (17) 3-
bedroom units.
Access to the site is proposed via SE 172"d St, between the east and west buildings, and another ingress/egress point
via Benson Rd S. The two access points create a through road for emergency vehicle ingress/egress across the
property. The proposal is served by a surface parking area to the south of the two structures, flanking the main
access drive. A total of 94 parking stalls would be provided in the surface parking area. An additional 20-parking
stalls would be provided along the street.
An unnamed seasonal stream, characterized as Ns pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, bisects the northern and southern
portions of the site and runs east to west.The applicant is proposing buffer averaging pursuant to RMC 4-3-050. A
Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study was performed by Sewall Wetland Consulting, Inc. on December 22, 2015
(Exhibit 10). An historic coal mine, known as the Springbrook mine, as well as its associated opening is also located
on the site near the south property line.The coal mine is designated as a High Coal Mine Hazard pursuant to RMC 4-
3-050.A Coal Mine Hazard Assessment was performed by Icicle Creek Engineers,Inc.on March 22,2004 and lanuary
20,2009 (Exhibits 7 and 8). Additionally,there are critical slopes(ocated on site.
The applicant is proposing the construction of a large 19,795 square foot landscaped community open space at the
southern portion of the site. The community open space incorporates active and passive space, with a central
connecting sidewalk which links the open space to the public right of way. A central path and complementing
pedestrian bridge crossing is proposed to be constructed to create an access point to the community open space
from the surface parking lot.
There are a totat of 429 trees on site of which 46 trees are proposed to be retained outside of the critical area and
buffer. Preliminary earthwork for the proposal includes 11,000 cubic yards of excavation and 3,250 yards of fill.
The Preliminary PUD would be used to modify parking,street,open space, retaining wall,building height,and design
standards. The applicant has proposed to preserve the stream onsite, provide additional buffer, create a large
public amenity space as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with enhanced pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, pedestrian amenities, and landscaping.
Construction of the development is anticipated to begin in May of 2016 and would be completed in July of 2017.
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Community& �omic Deve/opment �ronmEn���ppr�����, b�
AVANA RIDGE PUb �►` t � q �
Report of April 11,2016 Page 3 of 13
Staff received several traffic related comments/concerns. Also included in the comments letters were concerns
related to: access, open space, street improvements, drainage, wildlife, density, and quality of life {Exhibit 16). Non-
Environmental 'SEPA' Review concerns will only be addressed as part of staff's recommendation to the City's
Hearing Examiner for the Preliminary PUD and are not inctuded in this report.
Non-SEPA concerns include, but are not limited to the following: zoning, permitted uses, density, construction
mitigation/traffic control, crime, landscaping, access, parking, retaining walls, setbacks, utilities, public services, and
home sizes.
Studies provided by the applicant incfude a stormwater report, traffic study, habitat assessment, wetland and
supplemental stream study,arborist report,geotechnical and a coal mine hazard report.
PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following environmental(SEPA) review addresses only those project
impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations.
A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation
Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal,stafF recommends that the Responsible Officials:
Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period.
B. Mitigation Measures
1. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal will not increase
the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting praperties beyond pre-development
conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall also discuss
any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence
risk. If no measures are employed,the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional
measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
2. One (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both 106th Ave SE
and 104th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and associated equipment, at
the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for
review and approval,and shall be constructed prior to temporary occupancy.
3. The applicant shall provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of SE 172"d St and the west side of
Benson Rd S, approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks shall be consistent with
the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps shall also be constructed at the
southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is required to be conducted by
the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 172"d St and Benson Rd S. If necessary,
required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All improvements shall be
included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to
temporary occupancy.
C. Exhibits
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Pfan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21,2015)
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Nazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated March 22, 2004)
ERC Repart
City of Renton Department of Communrty&E�mic Oevelopment ' _n�vira�r�Te�7td�K�"v�`e Zom�tfee�e,porf v• ��
AVANA RlDGEPUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of Aprii 11,2016 Page 4 of 13
Exhibit 8 Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated January 20,2009)
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report, prepared by D.R.Strong (dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22, 2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(December
28, 2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Data Report,prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting (dated December 22,
2015)
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report,prepared by Greenforest Inc.(dated December 16,2015)
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15 Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2, 2016)
Exhibit 16 Public Comment Letters/Emails
Exhibit 17 Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March 21,
2016)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo- Independent Secondary Review, prepared by Traffex(dated March
26,2016)
D. Environmentallmpacts
The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions io deiermine whether the
applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated ta occur in conjunction
with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified thot the proposal is likely to have the fotlowing
probable impacts:
1. Earth
Impacts: The site can best be characterized as hilly generally sloping south toward the stream on site and
Benson Drive S. Slopes on-site range from 8 to 15�with a topographic relief of approximateiy 35 feet. The
steepest slope on the site is approxirnately 20�o in the proximity of the stream on site. The applicant is
proposing excavation in the amount of approximately 11,000 cubic yards. Approximately 3,250 cubic yards
of fill is proposed, of which 1,000 cubic yards would be imported structured fill. Following construction the
applicant is proposing an impervious cover of approximately 539'0 of the net site area, minus right-of-way
dedications and the stream on site. less than 40% impervious cover is proposed when using the gross site
area.
The applicant submitted a Geotechnical Report prepared by Earth Solutions NW, dated December 21, 2U15
(Exhibit 6). The report states that there are no geotechnical conditions on site which would preclude the
proposed development and the development would likely be supported by conventional foundations.
The soils on site were classified as Vashon till, beginning at approximately 2 to 6 feet below grade. Bedrock
was encountered approximately 22 to 43 feet below grade. No groundwater seepage was found by Earth
Solutions NW. However,groundwater seepage was encountered by Icicle Creek Engineers during their field
visit, for the coal mine hazard analysis, at one to two feet below grade (Exhibit 7). Therefore, perched
seepage zones are anticipated during construction depending on the time of year grading activities take
place.
The geotechnical report includes specific recommendations in order to mitigate potential geotechnical
impacts including: site preparation, structural fill, foundations, drainage considerations, hazards including,
and project design and monitoring. The applicant will be required to comply with the recommendations
included in the provided Geotechnical Engineering Report(Exhibit 6).
A coal mine was operated historically within the southern portion of the site, a�ong the southwesterly
property line. According to the Coal Mine Hazard Study, prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers on January 26,
ERC Report
City of Renion Departmenf of Community&�iomic Deve/opment _�nvrron���di�����0�8• bJ
AVANA RIDGE PUD CUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016
Page 5 of 13
2009,the coal mine is designated a High Coal Mine Hazard (CH) as defined by RMC 4-3-050 (Exhibit 8). The
classification was affirmed by Earth Solutions NW in the provided Geotechnical Report(Exhibit 6).
High Coal Mine Hazards are considered areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and
areas underlain by mine workings shallower than 200 feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower
than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected
by collapse or other subsidence. The main entry and airshaft for the Springbrook mine is also located on
site. IcicJe Creek Engineers encountered approximately 15feet of fill at what appears to be the mine entry,
estimated to be 5 to 8 feet in diameter, and inclined at approximately 55 to 60 degrees to the south (Exhibit
8).
There were several recommendations to mitigate potential risk of the coal mine hazard/former entry as part
of the Icicle Creek Engineer report, including the excavation of the fill at the mine entry and backfilling with
controlled density fill (Exhibit 8). However,these recommendations were based on a former proposal for a
deve�opment which included structures in the southern portion of the site. The proposed development is
setback approximately 125 feet from the coal mine hazard and would likely not have the same impacts as
the former development. However, there are some grading activities and smaller recreational
improvements in the proximity of the coal mine hazard which may potentially be affected by mining related
subsidence.
Therefore, staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring an updated Coal Mine Hazard Report
demonstrating the proposal would not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting
properties beyond pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the
site. The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to
mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for
the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and
approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
Removal of the existing vegetated cover during construction would leave soils susceptible to erosion. The
applicant will be required to design a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Contro! Plan (TESCP) pursuant
to the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual Erosion and Sediment Control Requirements.
A number of retaining walls are also proposed to be constructed on site as part of the grading proposal
(Exhibit 5) and will be further reviewed as part staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner for the
Preliminary PUD.
Mitigation Measures:An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal
will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-
development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site. The report shall
also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate coal mine
subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shal! provide justification for the exclusion of
additional measures. The updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit approval. If mitigation measures are includes,
they shall be implemented during utility permit construction.
Nexus:SEPA Environmental Regulations, RMC 4-3-OSO Critical Area Regulations
2. Water
a. Wetland,Streams,Lakes
Impacts: The applicant submitted a Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Ed Sewell
Consulting Inc., dated December 22, 2015 (Exhibit 10). The report states there are no wetlands located on
site. An unnamed seasonal stream (Stream A) has been identified on the subject site. Stream A bisects the
northern and southern portions of the site and runs from east to west. As defined by RMC 4-3-OSO.G the
stream best meets the criteria of a Type Ns stream due to its intermittent flow and lack of fish use. Class Ns
streams have a standard buffer of 50 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM)as well
ERC Report
City of Renion Department of�ommunity&t�mic Development _n�viron�tdfR2V1�W'CGnir�itfe '8 R'�rt'v' ��
AVANA R/DGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April il,2016 Page 6 of 13
as a 15-foot setback from the edge of the buffer to any structure. The applicant is proposing buffer
averaging for portions of the stream buffer. Additionally, the applicant is proposing an alteration within the
stream and its associated buffer for a pedestrian crossing. It should be noted that the Habitat Biologist for
WDFW concluded the on-site stream is not a jurisdictional water, or a "water of the state". As a result no
Hydraulic Permit Approval(HPA) permit is required from Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife.
Stream Buffer Avera�in�Proposal:
RMC 4-3-050.1.1 allows for critical area buffers to be reduced to no less than a 25-foot minimum for Type Ns
streams. The applicant has proposed buffer averaging, with reductions of the buffer down to 25feet, for
Stream A. Overall the applicant is proposing buffer reductions in the amount of approximately 8,835 square
feet to be mitigated with buffer additions in the amount of approximately 9,527 square feet. The applicant
is also proposing buffer enhancement for those portions of the buffer which would be reduced. Pursuant to
RMC, bufFer width averaging may be allowed by the reviewing official only where the applicant
demonstrates all of the following:
i. There are existing physical improvements in or near the water body and associated riparian area;
and
ii. Buffer width averaging will result in no net loss of stream/lake/riparian ecological function;and
iii. The totat area contained within the buffer after averaging is no less than that contained within the
required standard buffer width prior to averaging;and
iv. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in
WAC 365-195-905;and
v. Where the buffer width is reduced by averaging pursuant to this subsection, buffer enhancement
shall be required.
The existing stream buffer, which separates the north apartment building area from the southern open
space, is mostly existing forest (primarily Alder and Cottonwood) with an understory dominated by invasive
Himalayan blackberry.The buffer would be enhanced through the removal of the invasive blackberries and
other undesirable vegetation and replaced with native understory vegetation. There are existing road
improvements within the buffer on both the east and west sides of the stream. The applicant's
Supplemental Stream Study concluded the buffer reduction, through averaging, would have the physical
characteristics that can protect water quality and functions of the stream on site(Exhibit 10).
Staff has reviewed the stream buffer averaging proposal for Stream A, and agrees that the proposal meets
all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.1.1. However, the provided stream study does not include a
demonstration of compliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable to verify
that through the enhancement of the buffer and the use of low impact development strategies the reduced
buffer will function at a higher level than the standard buffer. Staff will be recommending a condition of
Preliminary PUD approval to address this concern prior to construction permit approval.
Stream Alteration Pronosal:
RMC 4-3-050.J.2.a allows for the construction of non-vehicular transportation crossings. The applicant has
proposed a pedestrian bridge trail crossing over Stream A. Pursuant to RMC, crossings may be permitted by
the reviewing official only where the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
i. The proposed route is determined to have the least impact on the environment,while meeting City
Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element requirements and standards in RMC 4-6-060;and
ii. The crossing minimizes interruption of downstream movement of wood and gravel;and
iii. Transportation facilities in buffer areas shall not run parallel to the water body;and
iv. Crossings occur as near to perpendicular with the water body as possible;and
v. Crossings are designed according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Water
Crossing Design Guidelines,2013, and the National Marine Fisheries Service Guidelines for Salmonid
ERC Report
City of Renton Deportment of Community&��omic Development � _�ronrn�lbi�ru/A�FCdiPl�r�tl� -�R���• bJ
AVAIVA R/OGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECf
Report of April 11,2016 Page 7 of 13
Passage at Stream Crossings, 2000, as may be updated, or equivalent manuals as determined by the
Administrator; and
vi. Seasonal work windows are determined and made a condition of approval; and
vii. Mitigation criteria of subsection L of this Section are met.
The path would connect the north and south sides of the buffer, crossing over Stream A, via a pedestrian
bridge. The bridge would also serve to connect the proposed structures to the proposed open space on the
southern portion of the site. The proposed bridged trail crossing is located within a narrow portion of the
stream, above the flow path of water, and is perpendicular to the water body.
Staff has reviewed the alteration proposal for the bridge across Stream A, and agrees that the proposal
meets all requirements found in RMC 4-3-050.J.2. However, the provided stream study does not include a
demonstration of compliance with criteria found in RMC 4-3-050.H.2. Therefore, staff was unable to verify
that the bridged crossing will not impact the function of the stream. Staff will be recommending a condition
of Preliminary PUD approval to address this concern prior to construction permit approval.
Additional conditions associated with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include signage and fencing and
review and approval of a final stream mitigation plan. In order to preserve and protect the stream and its
associated buffer the applicant will be required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the
parts of the site encompassing stream and buffer areas.
Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation needed
Nexus: Not applicable
b. Storm Water
Impacts: The site is located within the Black River drainage basin and Panther Creek drainage sub-basin.
Upstream runoff enters the site in two locations. Portions of SE 172"d St and 106`h Ave SE direct upstream
runoff across the northern property line. Upstream runoff from the west side of Benson Rd S flows into a
ditch along the east property line. Runnoff currently discharges at the sites western property line, at two
locations, and heads north through a conveyance system in Benson Drive S. The flows eventually cross
under Benson Drive S and conveyed a westerly direction in a series of pipes and catch basis eventually
outfalling into Panther Creek.
This project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton
Amendments to the KCSWM,Chapter 1 and 2. eased on the City's flow control map,this site falls within the
Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. This project is subject to full drainage review. The
applicant submitted a Preliminary Drainage Report prepared by D.R. Strong, dated December 28, 2015
(Exhibit 9).
The report also includes a detailed summary of the pre and post developed conditions. The stormwater
detention and water quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault
under the parking area located in the western portion of the site. The combined detention/water quality
vault would be followed by a media filtration system to accommodate the Enhanced Water Quality
Treatment requirements for multi-family development. For water quality features that are not in the City
Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM, and which have the General Use level designation through the state
Department of Ecology's Technology Assessment Protocol—Ecology(TAPE) program,an adjustment process
request is required. Conditions associated with Preliminary PUD approval will likely include a requirement
for the submittal, and approval,of an Adjustment in order to utilize water quality features which are not in
the City Amendments or the 2009 KCSWDM.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed
Nexus: Not applicable
3. Vegetation
ERC Report
City of Renton Deportment of Community&t.�.,omic Development _n�vironrnR�4ib7AeJ�A�C�11lr►litie��8• bJ
AVANA R/D6E PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 8 of 13
Impacts: The site is currently forested with mixed canopy dominated by Douglas fir, red cedar, big leaf
maple, Scouler's willow, and black cottonwood. The site's understory is dominated by tndian plum,
hazelnut, Himilayan blackberry, sword fern, and creeping blackberry. The applicant provided a Tree
Protection Plan/Arborist Report, completed by Greenforest Inc., dated December 16, 2015 (Exhibit 13).
Based on the provided tree inventory, 429 trees are located on the subject site. There are 114 trees located
in critical areas and associated buffers; 67 trees were identified as dead, diseased, or dangerous; and 37
trees would be located within proposed rights-of-way. This results in the exclusion of 218 trees from
retention calculations. As such, 211 trees were utilized to calculate retention requirements of 10% of the
significant trees located on the site. Therefore, the applicant would be required to retain at least 42 trees
on site. The provided Tree Retention Plan depicts the retention of 46 trees outside of the critical areas and
their associated buffers which serves to meet tree retention requirements (Exhibit 13). Additional analysis
will be provided as part of staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner on the Preliminary Planned
Urban Development.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation recommended
Nexus: Not applicable
4. Wildlife
Impacts: The applicant submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessment, prepared by Sewell Wetland
Consulting, Inc.,dated December 22, 2015(Exhibit 12).
Several potentially regulated fish and wildlife habitats and priority species are identified in the vicinity of the
project according to the list generated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife' (Priority Habitats
and Species list). The provided report identifies two mechanisms as having potential for impacting
potentially regulated fish and wildlife species and/or associated habitat: temporary impacts from
construction noise and long term effects associated with increased impervious surfaces.
This study identified that no state or federally listed species were identified or known to use the site and/or
are Iocated on or near the site. Pursuant to the provided report there is no "critical habitat" as defined by
Renton Municipal Code located on or near the subject site. Offsite priority aquatic species associated with
the Panther Creek in water habitat are not anticipated to be impacted if the proposal complies with
stormwater requirements as listed above.
While the above conclusions may be true,the site still provides habitat for many non-state or federally listed
species. Noted in the projects SEPA check list, and comments from parties of interest, several birds and
mammals utilize the site (coyote, mule deer, raccoon, opossum, eastern gray squirrel, barn owl, European
starling,common crow,flicker,garter snake, Pacific tree frog,songbirds,and small rodents).
The removal of a large portion of the trees would impact existing habitat for common local wildlife.
However, the applicant proposes a large, landscaped community open space provided at the southern
portion of the site totaling 19,795 square feet and the 49,918 square feet of critical area and associated
buffer would remain in a vegetative/open space state providing a sanctuary for the animals that reside in
the area. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the subject development would result in a significant adverse
impact to wildlife. In order to preserve and protect the stream and associated buffers the applicant will be
required, to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement over the par#s of the site encompassing the
stream and buffer area.
Recommended Preliminary PUD conditions will include requirements for permanent fencing of the native
growth protection areas which would eliminate human or domesticated animal intrusion and would not
adversely impact habitat connectivity.
Mitigation Measures:No further mitigation needed
Nexus:Not applicable
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Communrty&�omic Development � _�ironrrf�7i tb�IkU1�nFCCr�►�����• �JJ
AVANARIDGEPUD Lt/AIS-000894,PPUD,fCF
Report of April 11,2016
Page 9 of 13
5. Transportation
Impacts: The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by TraffEx, dated February 2, 2016
(Exhibit 15). The provided TIA was found to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable
for preliminary review. Several traffic related comments letters/emails have been received by the public.
The comments raise concerns regarding the use of the proposed SE 172nd St entrance and potential impacts
to the neighboring single-family residential development to the north as well as additional impacts to
queueing delays at Benson Rd S and Benson Drive S(Exhibit 15).
Based on public comments received, staff required an evaluation by an independent qualified professional
regarding the applicant's transportation analysis and the effectiveness of any proposed mitigating measures.
An Independent Secondary Review of the provided Traffic Study prepared by TENW, dated March 21, 2016
(Exhibit 17). In general, the secondary review affirmed the overall trip distribution patterns. The report
however, recommended revisions be made to the traffic counts to consider the worse-case traffic scenario
given the observed intersection queuing at 108`h Ave SE and Benson Rd S. The applicant provided a memo,
dated March 26, 2016, in response to the recommendations included in the secondary review (Exhibit 18).
The memo generally concurred with the recommendations of the peer review with the exception for the
removal of the site driveway access restrictions to SE 172nd Street. The applicant's response memo revised
the TIA to reflect recommended changes in trip distribution, balanced traffic volumes, the analysis of
queuing on Benson Rd and left turn lane warrants.
After review of the original Tra�c Impact Analysis {Exhibit 15), Independent Secondary Review (Exhibit 17),
and the applicant's response memo (Exhibit 18) staff provided applicable comments below for each
Transportation subject.
Access: The applicant is proposing two points of ingress and egress into the site in order to meet Fire
Department requirements for access. The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172nd St between the
proposed buildings, and one entrance off of Benson Road South. The two access points converge to form
drive-through access through the site. Several public comments were received requesting access be
eliminated from SE 172"d St, in order to mitigate anticipated cut through traffic on neighboring roads to the
north. In addition, concerns were raised regarding the blocking of the proposed access, along Benson Rd S,
during PM peak hour traffic. The applicant has proposed a driveway configuration which would attempt to
restrict movements to left-in/right—out only as way to mitigate cut through traffit on residential streets to
the north.
Access and proposed mitigation, was analyzed as part of the Independent Secondary Review prepared by
TENW (Exhibit 17). TENW generally affirmed ihe trip distribution assumptions made by TraffEx and
substantiated the need for two access points. With respect to proposed mitigation,TraffEx determined that
the proposed SE 172"d St driveway configuration would be ineffective in limiting impacts to neighboring
residential streets to the north. In addition, it is anticipated that restrictions to the SE 172"d driveway would
encourage u-turns and associated impacts to existing residential driveways along the north side of SE 172"d
St. Therefore,staff will be recommending a condition, of Hearing Examiner approval,the elimination of the
proposed access restrictions along SE 172"d St,and the entrance will be required to provide full access.
In order to address anticipated impacts on neighboring streets caused by cut-through traffic, staff
recommends traffic calming measures be used in lieu of the foregoing site access restriction. Specifically,
Electronic Speed Radar Signage has been shown to be effective in reducing traffic speeds and aggressive
driving. Staff recommends, as a mitigation measure,that one (1) Electronic Speed Radar Sign be installed in
the northbound direction on both 106th Ave SE and 104`h Ave SE. The applicant shal) install the signs,
mounting poles,and associated equipment, at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included
in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shalf be constructed prior to temporary
occupancy.
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Community&Ec�mic Development � �.�i�ronrrt�rfC��tS�rDV�binTn�t�CR�rt"v' u/
AVANA RIDGE PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page 10 of 13
Level of Service: It is anticipated that the proposed development wouid generate approximately 492 average
daily trips with 38 AM peak-hour trips and 46 PM peak-hour trips. The provided report analyzed three
intersection locations(Exhibit 15):
Intersection 1: Site Access/SE 172"d St
Intersection 2: 108`h Ave SE/Benson Rd 5/SE 172nd St
Intersection 3: Site Access/Benson Rd S/108th Ave SE
The provided analysis notes that all intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service with the
proposed development. Therefore, the proposal would not be required to mitigate at any intersection.
Analysis of future conditions address cumulative impacts of the proposed project and traffic growth in the
study area. Traffic signal warranty analysis was also provided at the intersection of SE 172"d St and Benson
Rd 5. The report states there is no need for a signal at the intersection as a result of the project.
However, The Transportation Department is conducting a model to assess any possible solution to address
the citizen's concerns regarding the backing of queue on Benson Road from the intersection with SR 515 to
SE 172"d Street. Staff, is hoping to provide an update at the public hearing for the subject project.
Increased traffic created by the development would be mitigated by payment of transportation impact fees.
The transportation impact fee that is current at the time of building permit application will be levied. The
applicant submitted for a building permit in December of 2015. The fee in 2015 was assessed at$2,214.44
per new multi-family unit. The fee is estimated at approximately$164,000.The fee shafl be payable to the
City at the time of building permit issuance.
Site Distance: The provided Traffic Impact Analysis states sight distance requirements are met at the site
access driveway onto SE 172"d St and with vegetation trimming, within the right of way, at the site access
driveway to Benson Rd S(Exhibit 15).
Street Improvements: Street Improvements are regulated by RMC 4-6-060—Street Standards.See below:
Benson Drive S—Benson Drive S(SR 515) is a principal arterial and a state route roadway along the project's
west property line. The existing road currently contains curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the
street. There is currently no planter strip existing along the Benson Drive S street frontage. Per code,
frontage improvements including 0.5 feet wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, an 8-
foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and storm water improvements are required on principal arterial streets.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing right-of-way. Due to critical areas along portions of the
frontage, the applicant has requested a modification to allow the sidewalk to remain in the current location
for those areas where critical areas are located. As part of the Preliminary PUD recommendation to the
Hearing Examiner staff will likely be recommending approval of the requested modification. The approval
would likely include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in
addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire foundations along Benson Drive S.
Benson Rd S — Benson Rd 5 is a minor arterial along the project's east property line. Half-street frontage
improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street fronting the development. Per code,
the minimum right-of-way width required for a minor arterial is 91 feet. The available right-of-way width on
the Benson Rd S frontage, per the King County assessor map, is 100 feet and would not necessitate
additional right-of-way dedication.The required paved width on this street is 44 feet,which includes three
travel lanes and a 5-foot wide bike lane on both sides of the street. Frontage improvements would include
the following: a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-foot wide landscaped planter, an 8-foot wide sidewalk,
street lighting, and stormwater improvements are required. ' The applicant is proposing street
improvements along Benson Rd S which comply with code.
SE 172"d St —SE 172nd St is a commercial mixed use and industrial access street along the project's north
property line. Half-street frontage improvements are required to be provided on the side of the street
fronting the development. Per code, the minimum right-of-way width required for a commercial mixed use
and industrial access street is 69 feet. The available right-of-way width on the SE 172"d St frontage, per the
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Community&Ec�onomic Development {r�o���������0. b)
AVANA R/DGf PUD LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
Report of April 11,2016 Page il of 13
King County assessor map, is 60 feet and would require additional right-of-way dedication. Frontage
improvements would include the following: an 8-foot parking lane, a 0.5 foot wide curb and gutter, an 8-
foot wide landscaped planter, a 6-foot wide sidewalk, street lighting, and stormwater improvements are
required. The applicant is proposing street improvements, along SE 172"d St, which comply with code. The
applicant has requested a modification to reduce the required dedication from 4.5 feet to 3 feet. As part of
the Preliminary PUD recommendation to the Hearing Examiner staff will likely be recommending approval of
the requested modification. The approval would likely include a condition of approval requiring the
applicant to dedicate 1-foot behind the sidewalk in addition to right-of-way dedication for luminaire
foundations along SE 172"d St.
Pedestrian Improvements: As part of the proposed project, sidewalks would be constructed along the
frontage of the site and would connect to the existing sidewalk system. However,safety concerns have been
raised with respect to pedestrian connectivity off site due to missing sidewalk linkages off site approaching
the intersection of Benson Rd S and SE 172nd St. Given the number of homes proposed it is very likely that a
large influx of people would utilize the public sidewalk system as well as the anticipated schooi bus stop
across Benson Rd S. Providing pedestrian connections to abutting properties is an important aspect of
connectivity and encourages pedestrian activity and is required to be considered when reviewing the subject
application. Pathways should be easily identifiable to pedestrians and drivers. The condition of the existing
protruded curb,approaching the intersection of SE 172"d St and Benson Rd S, has been largely disturbed and
does not provide a safe route for school children and or residents walking to and from the site. As a result,
staff recommends a mitigation measure requiring the applicant provide an off-site sidewalk, along the south
side of SE 172nd St and the west side of Benson Rd S,approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site
sidewalks shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA ramps
shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally, a street lighting analysis is
required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the intersection of SE 172"d St and
Benson Rd S. If necessary, required street lighting shall be provided according to City standards. All
improvements shall be included in the engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be
constructed prior to temporary occupancy.
Concurrencv - A concurrency recommendation will be provided in the staff report to Hearing Examiner
based upon the test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS-
tested Transportation Plan, payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee, and an application of site specific
mitigation. The development will have to meet the City of Renton concurrency requirements.
Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation needed
Nexus: Not applicable
E. Comments of Reviewing Departments
The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable,their
comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or"Advisory Notes to Applicant."
✓ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report.
The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day
appeal period(RCW 43.21.C.075(3);WAC 197-11-680).
Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in
writi�g together with the required fee to:Hearing Examiner,City of Renton,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA
98057,on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 29,2016. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and
additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall—
7tn Floor, (425)430-6510.
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Communit� -conomic Development Environ �l Rev'e ' te R���M #8. b�
AVANA RfDGEPUD � � LU i
Report of April il,2016 Page 12 of 13
ADV/SORY NOTES TO APPLICANT
The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use
action. eecause these notes are provided as information only,they are notsubject to the appeal process for the
land use actions.
Plannin�:
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 iimits haul hours between 8:30 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday unless otherwise
approved by the Development Services Division.
2. Commercial,multi-family,new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted to the
hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.,Monday through Friday.Work on Saturdays
shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00)a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.No work shall be
permitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty(30j days of completion of grading work,the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate ground
cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where no further construction work will
occur within ninety(90)days.Alternative measures such as mulch,sodding,or plastic covering as specified in the
current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton may be proposed
between the dates of November ist and March 31st of each year.The Development Services Division's approval of
this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the permit.
4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit is required when more than one acre is being cleared.
5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Stream Mitigation Report and Maintenance and Monitoring proposal.
In addition,the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requirements of RMC 4-3-OSO Critical Areas.
This includes,but is not limited to,placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protection Easement,providing
fencing and signage,and providing the City with a site restoration surety device and,later,a maintenance and
monitoring surety device.
6. The applicant may not fill,excavate,stack or store any equipment,dispose of any materials,supplies or fluids,operate
any equipment,install impervious surfaces,or compact the earth in any way within the area defined by the drip line of
any tree to be retained.
7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot(6')high chain link temporary construction fencing around the drip lines
of all retained trees,or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees.Placards shall be placed on fencing every fifty
feet(50')indicating the words,"NO TRESPASSING—Protected Trees"or on each side of the fencing if less than fifty
feet(50').Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced and signed.Individual trees
shall be fenced on four(4)sides.In addition,the applicant shall provide supervision whenever equipment or trucks are
moving near trees.
8. This permit is shall comply with the eald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 7he permitted is responsible for adhering
to the U.S.Fish and Wildli#e Service National Bald Eagle Management 6uidelines(2007)and/or your U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service permit.
Water:
1. Water Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
2. A water availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use application.
3. Approved water plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review.
Sewer:
1. Sewer Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
2. A sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use applica#ian.
3. Approved sewer plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review.
Drainaae:
i. A geotechnical report for the site'prepared by Earth Solutions Inc.was submitted for the project. The geotechnical
report mentions that the soil is till soil and is not suitable for infiltration. All geotechnical recommendations shall be
fol lowed.
2. A Construction Storm water General Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing of the
site exceeds one acre
3. Surface water system development charge fee is$0.594 per square foot of new impervious surface area,but not less
than$1,485.00. This fee is subject to change at the rate that is applicable at the time of issuance of the utility
ERC Report
City of Renton Department of Community&" �mic Development +ronment !R�v�"eJ�of�
AVANA RlDGE PUO '�" i``� A LGI��Z9���1���i C�B• bJ
Report of April 11,2016 Page 13 of 13
construction permit will be applicabie.
Transportation:
1. The maximum slope back of sidewalk is 4H:2V for minimum 3 feet back of the sidewalk.
2. The corner curb ramps at all street intersections adjacent to the site should be ADA compliant. ADA afso requires
matching ADA compliant curb ramps on the other side of the intersection.
3. The site is proposed to be accessed via driveways from Benson Road South and SE 172nd Street. Please refer to RMC
4-4-080 for driveway design standards including location,grade,and width.
4. Street lighting is required to be provided on the frontage streets by the project.
5. The City of Renton Trench restoration and Street overlay requirements will be applicable for any work in the public
right of way.
Parks:
1. Park Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies.
2. Street trees—Ginkgo on SR 515;Ash on Benson Rd.5.;Elm on SE 172nd.Space minimum distance of 50 feet apart and
not close than 30 feet from street lights(not all lights are shown on plans). Potential for one to two more street trees
at NE corner of SR515&Benson Rd. Use only Ginko,Elm,and Ash as street trees.
3. Planting Strip:require a continuous planting strip along all streets,then sidewalk;plan does not show this. Dangerous,
fast traffic requires that a planting strip buffer pedestrians from roadway.
4. Parking Lot:some islands are too small for trees;use only vine maple or smaller in those areas.
Genera(:
1. All construction or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan submittals.
All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. Plans shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility plans are complete,please submit four(4)copies of the drawings,two(2)copies of the drainage report,
permit application,an itemized cost of construction estimate,and application fee at the counter on the sixth floor.
ERC Report
--� � #8, b)
:.�,:
': �Hy EXHIBITS
Project Name: Project Number:
Avana Ridge Preliminary PUD LUA15-000894, ECF, PPUD
Date of Hearing Staff Contad Project Contad/Appiicant Project Location
(tentatively)5/10/16 Rocale Timmons lustin Lagers 17249 Benson Rd S Renton,
Senior Planner Avana Ridge,llC WA
9675 SE 36th St,Ste 105;
Mercer Island,WA 98040
The following exhibits were entered into the record:
Exhibit 1 ERC Report
Exhibit 2 Site Plan
Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan
Exhibit 4 Elevations
Exhibit 5 Grading Plan
Exhibit 6 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Earth Solutions NW(dated December 21,
2015)
Exhibit 7 Coal Mine Hazard Study,prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated March 22,
2004)
Exhibit 8 Coal Mine Hazard Study,prepared by Icicle Creek Engineers(dated lanuary 20,
2009}
Exhibit 9 Drainage Report, prepared by D.R.Strong(dated December 28, 2015)
Exhibit 10 Supplemental Stream Study,prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated
December 22, 2015)
Exhibit 11 Conceptual Stream Mitigation Plan prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting
(December 28,2015)
Exhibit 12 Habitat Data Report,prepared by Sewell Wetland Consulting(dated December
22,2015)
Exhibit 13 Arborist Report,prepared by Greenforest Inc.(dated December 16,2015)
Exhibit 14 Tree Retention Plan
Exhibit 15 Traffic Impact Analysis(TIA), prepared by TraffEx(dated February 2,2016)
Exhibit 16 Public Comment Letters/Emails
Exhibit 17 Independent Secondary Review—Traffic Study, prepared by TenW(dated March
21,2016)
Exhibit 18 Response Memo-Independent Secondary Review,prepared by Traffex (dated
March 26,2016)
CITY OF
en on ��
_ _ __ _ _ ._.__ _ _ ___ _ _ -- ___ ----_______ ----- . ____ _ _ ___._.. ---___—_----- -- --- _---------- _.----------
1 �� �
� u
, �� �
� ;
� �
�'� j �� �
�_ `, ___— . I '�1� r�
____
---
_ , . � — -
� Q
� \ � � ��2 �S �T - _-__ � �
, � _, _ , ----
_
. _. , � ..
. __ � , � �. . : , � � ., , � � _ o
,� �\ - - � � �
�' \`�,�r4 .,P;°"..r::w� .:w�::+.�...s.�.�..- � �,.------- . "�, -�--- , .._ . _..:�� �'�"�."'�_.i...'„* ' bn
� \ �P,OP . .. .. �1 I �::.-�---_T—.,:.:.,.r--�� __�-. �'e . . � >'_'--�t -�--: . ..:-�-� � --�.._r`+r,. _,�' �
�����♦ � � ,. �= �s...yti �— � yh � � ' r1.�
� j� t �
�� ,�.}�\ � � ' -" wmoxcwo unwaan �JX' 7:�u'1 ,i ��an
i ��.�� .. e�awms�rpn iwwa[owmin tS
I \` � MMIIBRYWIG MiMf�I�YaM6 �.
`�\\ �. ( OYda�Lf/�N�f W�IO�'MMt�Hif .:� �: � �'.
; �
��\ � ' �
��. i �.� .; � �. � ; �
,.
�� ;��\� _�_n,_ _.._.'�8.cs_ ' � f._. o„� 1I� �� �
�� � __._� � � ,.
\ ,o :
' \ �� � ,;,�.� I I ��.
� �' -
�„ ; , . f�n tM�p�p I
��I \ ., �\�\ .\�` � '`; a ; �...`�♦ _ _ � �ar+....�.*:.�.;:.�.�...r.r^}irri�.'�IItY.,�iw-.*wrs�.+�T� � 1
� ���� ' n�. � '., i "�.`.
� � \ � .... .. .....r.:. .. ::� � \ ,/ •��w�� �
\
.�
� R 1AiM1Yr�� t TT T , _ -.t. . _ _ _ -
\� .\..\t �w� {�� � � � '� ( � I.l..l. �.1.� ���/ AVANA RIDGE`
, ` � \;:.� � 11.11_L t�"^"�`� R .J;;.' �/ PLANNED URBAN
�� � � ��` � � � � � +•�,=��(- -j ��- � i i DEVELOPMENT
, � �� � ( ' : ., ��
` I � II < < <�< � �';�
II `\� . , � � tosts sE trzna
�� .��, L---.�-.r-Y+-'�-+�-��+-� k�e�!�- %/�
� /
j �•, �� /! � � SIREET�RENlON.WA ��
I � \� � ` /� �♦ 98055
\�� 4� ,� � �
.� � �� �� : ��� ���� �
� �� � �% � ,� .
I `��\� /� I
\��, �• ' ' � { AVANA RIDOE,LLC
i � V� � ,// � i
.� ,
! �\ �� , � �% �+. � --------
l ` —i'�" � ."�.�°'"'°�.' .�.
�` •/ �. :!.['� ��'� _ j �
. .
i � ,�;-. , �.� :,_: , �
' \
� �. .- . �...� �� �
, � �� ,� � / - - ;,
� \'�� I♦ \'�. ''�, `• `.._ , ' "�.��i ,.,�.
1
; t f �,� / �,'�' •
� ����� � �--- ���%i ,' n
, �_.
, ._. ,,:
.. , �,�
., s
. . .
� �, � '� �- NORTH
� \� �� � • /
.
i
�, yr►.. � ,,,�f; /, � �,�;�_. _ __..
..,� e�.on� / i� � � �w
\\\ �,�Ei �� I rM
., ��_ ,. / ,.
---�// SRE P�_
�� EXHIBIT 2 '' ''
�
i ;� •�
, ____ ___..__.. ...
i i -�^���
i
____ __ __ __ _ _ . __. _ _ _ _ _ --- —__.._ __ _ _ __ __._ __ _.._ _ _---- _ --
' A
�.�.t,.�.N,.��.w�. �.�.��� _ . _------- __ ---- -----__ .---- -------
---------�
_ _ _ _ _oo
�
,� � •
:� � �
�
�
•
- �
Y',`.'ti� , � �
_�,�����9s��a,�n`�C ' a 4 � � � ��/�, /.k �� ���XIC>����7&�@1�S1�7i�
�� �t`.,�;���y��W�A����G��l��;;_i. _�011tl� _ -
en � —� -� . �'" . . � 1-, f:�'a ?� -_ ..i:
;.' ` "_� . .�y .`+.` tr �.�r '����a0.'�, ,�f 1y.A��Y
�`6? ' 1t "'S ,� ='�:iK��,tF3�1'�.'��t : ��- � . 3' �
{4- � �t � y �� t �N`�_b� �Ay '
v ��. � � � :taq� i� p�v, i
��,l ;• , v � C i A�xl , .I ,�
� a � �� a�;
'�` � `� � � .,�.�,,���:w�'�!.��.�:� .� ���
%` ��_'S�.. �"....�}s�,�F� ' � � 1 � �
... .
x
� +�a
:..a.
. '
_. _ .,.r . �.
t. �h T��� ' :
a o. >
,
� .: 1� 7_-,� �� �.y r � � � . �'+y� �+� �..�� �/ i
��'. `�^-, �� � ,�F�"��i cai"�A+'.: a�,'�'d'" '�sYM...�,� � .:
� . _ T\� �� ' � ��� � � �"�`I"'�`
�• � 'a i,, y '�1 i.�/ `' � .F/ ♦�' �
��.�oy+1t' ;-���� � ' r.. _7,,._. ... .< r... :.. . �is�,.,,,,b,,,�. � ' ...) �✓� � , '�
�.. �
� , _ ,,.�.,,�:i' `�'�x4 �� ' � �
l` 9',��, ;� �"''-��:,�. '�,:..Y � ;V �u I�
. �`T .,- � _ ,i,
�" `°���i��, �`%
< �.��p -F+`� ��sf �f
��..'n.�. " � � » �.
;� . ' wi
. h M1 �.
i h t
...� � G� ":. �4'ST'��
��°e � '�� _ "' +��� ,
:.r l�. ��`�7J`'t,� � � � ,
'�� d:-. � „e��.,,f '`' � ;;�`� �
� j� .� � � ��-SF i �
�'+��%�a'-:. 4 ay �� _ �(^+. � �:�y� . ,
,4' • z
�, r� �.,,,y•' /
' ��
� r ..
� ~:,� � ���:; ,�'�. ��,� `,:/!'�,� .
�,r";„�;``�' ��'��, .��-� i�:':�" ,
� �'��,� ,,„`° � �°� , ���
�,Y ,�R � �.. �ti ;�g,
� �, ; y
�,� ''a`"� � �:,�
.,
� •• •-
�.�.!
��,�',� , � �.'�+
,
��.� � 1
♦
. �
Full Document ____ __- _____---
uest __, ____ _.__
-.__
on Req -- -- ----
- --. ____
; Available up _ —_- —_- --- ---------
--____-
-- --- __ __--
---- ----- $� �,
-� � ..-, £� `-'
u,: N,.f
_ F� � a
--�---- �-- ���> ._ r _..L_�...._�--------'t___r--J.__ -i
,._.. Z-..-.._r----
_. , r-----t ,_ ., l •--1_._r--- � •—
.._, � `_ �� �
�, �.: � �� i
w�JY:) ' � PN uiilt: i� i p■�Q /��
� -' L �V
; ff�i !1G
i
I
� i
� � r � n
�� i � �
I �
j . . . '� L"'-"-__' ' � � 1
`'_'__' .-, .
._ . � � Z ....r_J i .�._....._s' .. ....., � �
. � .r...., �._...__
... .__."_� r-...._i ..._.� �
y, . . ....._1 �
: � wa I b f
• K�IP.4W_4VEWU,4ElEYATIQN_—.,-.-------- �.._ �
� SL4E.16f.��{� .. .. �
�W�� m�� �
- .. �... .�. _ �..� � �`
I� A A5� B 1 ( �� r i - �� � - -_ f :
C �� i �,� .Ci�C2Y/`C.3, �C 8�(C.8{D�.S� �E��FJ ,F.� F.6+ �G� 'H'H.1 H 1 �H g , I , (I S i �! Y l i'�i 1�-� ��� l '� �, i
-� _ �; \_., `_�_..�_i � I �; �_ �J J.2XJ� �.0.J:J�KJ\K% �:J�M/ �N� �N.S CO J
�, .
..._. . ��,''T,. ..;. . .. _,
, i. - :.:� _ ._t..,_.
� . .�� `� ��: # ,. r� - tti:
T .�
�� r � �- . � . _ ���
�, �= ;: � �..i . -' . :: �,... � `� i� - -�--..�'�-
� ; ��� � __"_,_ , _--� - VANA RIDGE�
i �:: `_� ,-_ i"� :.1 PLANNED URBAN
� ._. r —
I �'� �,.: C_., _ . .�_.: . .;-t� ;�..I f ; � _ .. � DEYELOPMENT
I y.
L; �.; ' . ._.: . . ; .,, �oa�ese»z�w
�—_
I �.RENfON�WA
r r
I �'��y�y-y
J � � L ,
�'ry-��_�
�R�L.$fiE_�$04TH�LEVATION___..,__�Z� ---;" ��
sfue,nr.ts �pn
�j ,�� AVANA RID ,
/ \ / ' GE LL
�- _ '
�O��N.S) �N� M��L) (KS�KXJ.B�JB� d3�.2��J,� �IS� �I,,) �H8 jH.3i �H 1�'H�� �G� �F.81 �F.3� �F:'�E/ �D:�D�C.B��C.%�C.�Q21�C� � _. ( ,,,,���.... ��
.. _: .. �.:... � �B �A��A) I �.w�
�
,.:- .. ���. � . -----� —
� ,....� � .: . -, �� __I.. _ .. � .aroaE� -
. __� � . _' . ' . eva
� .- �, .' ...
�� � ' , , ; : � . __ '
-_ ' '-I .^i�� ,- ��j• �_l
�'.�--I ,.., _..� ^�
-
__ . -� -, -7- r- `.;.t� n
; , _ _.
_. __ �..._. �._. _._ � . ' �
T T
� ,...� _ .....i . .__ , �. • . :, . .r..� .. y�y �
_ ._ ..,f �� I �
���.:. '"_.. `� J �� i �nM.T4 N
. _..) F ���� --
���- � a�aecj�
.�. , .,. ... ELEVAT�IS
I
I �
� � r4.�RMllm�
`---- - OYE�lLSBRE-NOIRHELEVATION --�_1 r1
�.� �.,�a �,,.:,w _ _ ___-- --_�___ EXHIBIT 4 ------
� A��
.______'._ SG.E:4N'.1P—
- ..._-......__-__""-. . n
.._- . ._. ._
..'__ _ _. __"__ "'_� _____"'_'T—_
W
�
x
sw �/4 sEcn A t%ANAHRIDGE NGf 5 £, w.M.
x
x _ _
x _
, _ _ _ _ _ - - � �
x — — — — _
'x` �� a`: ;, setrt�vnsnveEr �-- -- -_._ ---- ----- - �_ .—_-----
� _� � - -------- _- ,T a ,
__ _ :.;�
_ _ _—— - �, - � v — — — —1
__ ,_ __ __ __ _ —
- — — _- -,y,,_.� � —- ` � —
,_�o t ..;
y.� �.
M .-.�_ .-.� •�s:... . ..� _ - � '_. .. — '�� �-.��
{,
r b
\ \ .. _ .z� .. _ � ��
y W .. \ .^� _ � �� I
�� ' �
� � r... �.. __��,�. ._
.
..A.���' .... ' ��_
� _
�..
.
z . . '.� '�� '"__""_"�
� • �.
� �� \\ � A�`\` '__._ _ ' / _ I _ ' �1 _ �__'_ �` /�
a -----�- .i 'l
.1��:'::. ` � . /
z � '
a \\ `` \ � r� easreuaanra
a �\ - . .k �-�- wEsreukaxc ! ' /
�� ��' �� �
, jb
, .
�\ I �i � � �
,
,: . _
- � -
., • —
� - �
_ �--�--� _,_ s . .. _ _�. —. - -,--
' � ' �
- _ — �� � �...,.,..
,,
._
�� �"`." ,�`-� ` ` \.��-` -�,<.� '� -- --- -- -__- i,:
;..
..
,\ �Z "' 1�- - -- _ " _= :�� - -�� ---- - 1� /
: � _ . .
... _ :
_ .__ -
�-- , . �
� ..
� �`..< _ .� �� .� c ` �%� * T:' /+�,��}
i , g �: �
... ,i .S. __ —� '. .1- -..:'�. J����.i..�.«. . . _ _ _ __ _'_ _.._ ___ __— _ . _ *�.,.//
\ \ �
\ \� .__ " ._. -- � � _ • 1 } �/ � w1an�m'
� a �`w� �"h,V�- \. 1 ( �{{\ . � :J'��-./ /
\\ . _� " . ` ��'�b -J� 'X.:� 4'.-- --_' !. ��.. ,s,�/�y� .
� :'.'�� ��..'.. '�: .:. � . . - . .. �"+.l�'A$P ` _ ��'� � � "3%//
� . �'Eq-}��S'iMy�'S� � , � /`� � j i
\ . � � _�_ ... . , ,, t
fr, J' i
I.
PfIF�MYAIAwY a L� � Y 1110N5 �\ . .... ` °e ' , /�
Icv v�cJ (�rv�i fcupies�/ ..�� � . � � . ' . .. • � •• i �
row itN �.,,.csa� �� �"y. . . . . . _ . , . . �
��a.,��..� � � � . - � . . , b�f�. %/i
"�s�..K.w�� ��
�M�.m.. ��....,a� ""'� \ � 1. � � , . . . ` i
m�rerr,u No�s `\ ''�;r�.� � '�^ �. + � Pp�/
.�.o „�.,,,a'J.'�a ` 0
� .0 .�,a. .o �„ \� � f �` ���
��<... ..�.,u..�,,�o..�¢o.o..�,� �F �'/� � , � z /
��H� �� \ �, q � � �
Q� .M04.�� �� '+ ` ` � I
k R6�.,,. \\ \, �\.. � / I
� \ \\, :',� �
�� � /.
� \\ ` � �
� EXHIBIT 5 .; ,�
_ � � ;,. /
§ .�,:
� \ �. '', :�.'iv� / / NO H
� . ,.... tl
r � �__y�.- , . ,.
� o.R.B�q��c Y�" ~ w�rareo - '� _n�j ����Y OF AVANA RIDGE PUD �. +�+�
s', ����8I1r••r•�w � I� ,�i�>� c '� cavsu.rnoE��es _ —1� RF_NTON CONCEPfWLaRAoxoopuN
� ur�..e�...r�ar U^ � �i ..rw n«.�...�na. � �N.�� °V1�1 0� K wo... .c
� I nn9/BWY�n9/P•0
WY�l00lYW F's �_—_i� �m�r�awr,�� NO. at�nSqN BY MiE IYVfl
� i
IXtS PROJECT N0. 150BB A—N N
�
�
�
��. ;i
r . . >�,, ,,' Y �., ' ��
�� . . � {r�; . ,
,���, � -
'�,�.'��-� � .
:�� '�.•,�{�� � � � • • . �
� '��
�.,..
�c`�t'tfl ,�,r, � � r.
SO�It�lO11S �. -,��.'' F r .
Nw��.�; r � , �=� - . � . � -�
: _ �•~'' ;°�"
, `
` - c+N - � . r' , � � -r- �-
s` a+{ � r'' �.t t
� .,� � y .
,� _ + _ _ '�± y .
_ .. r,��+.� ,'� :: e
-� a, �
' ��`� fir��
. . . .
< .
� ,
G���,iT.� ':`.�"�- l ,
`2 !r��� "�,�..-. .f{ .;
��; �~�� +� �, f � ,�
7t�:;111 �f �',� �_i'
'��:� 7:.!Z` ;� � / � r* n'"q°M. �
�,
U�
��
�.
,� _.;,y....
� �`.�```� �`'t.� w._ � "r � ..o
-r( �1�`i' � ` _'— — _.e„�,.
�r . �
T �
�� �� -
... ' , _._ ..
' «..
°`r '" �.:.y`'�+'�.,; � .
��'-�,�' �hed�'� ..���.'t. ,
"'z�;
�c;k '�ly�;. - ._.._ . . �
r:,k
�„.�
; � r �,_
,s
#,. .��p�` . . rw :�T.
�
�' _'-.. , '� , t.�..� .
�
..'a° x'! � j 3.����4�.
• • ! Ye
� , � I �
�";; �"`*� [�'�
s ,�� ` �` ,�, s�,�,,," r,-�'"�+.:�:` . �.,�
�1= � �,: ' v �'' - "��-�' /j�'_"�i-.,� .'
.� � �iJ,�6!14+ ,i-� . � r 1!T' k �»
7 Y � „ ' '� ���l' • �4 ry �� � -t �j.�.a�,�+�
. �[ 1"T��6�.i. `'. .. '�-� r�✓_;y.,
����lt��!r� ��,.� ' ♦� ; i-* �
�", %��, ,���.a.� '-��d+'��,��;��,' �T=�J''���� �..t ��'�{w.
� A '�r �s �
_� •���a�`��„ .�i"'+' .[ .;,h_-_._
��,r. � «��:r��( -r �rr�3„�# -� �t..y�.
o�`,,'�''�s„ �X�,��-� r�ti.
,tf�'r ��d���•r.��,S,�T�
�-'_� ri
• . •,,.+.,�"f
�
1 . � �
1��:w t
• � ,g�,:,��4��^R�.,»;'' .`;1
� ^ ,�°:
. s��:N�'."- a
�'",�r 9 ���'�Cy���.J
: �;.
� � + x
�, . :..�'
'�.. ^+. � ''M"'� ~ � a ..
,,,"^�� �`^-�"'� �Lyt'.. �.q�'� �, ,
w . � � � � ,,y� - , '�,� �..
; 4 �' `;�, ue:i �. ,�,.�a v�*'�" `� , � �'' .� �,�.; � a;^�' �
;r��b'1�'*�y.. '"� ,� i ,�, ;`�+ •�� � C .:. `� da. � .
d3'�.�� .-�, ,� `�,�� -.�x "� _
w' .r.c�� v�,T .a' ���.. (;, +.. . _ �"�,.,,, +' a:�.. , a ,�'%- , _
s� � �
'#Y,� ! �, + �`�'w�� 'Y v '!��„` •,.�. ��. . 4 yii@a?� �� �_
.- �!4`'. ' �� """� � a.�°"��� .��� .
� ��� ��k` `�{��� :_ �,y,>
Ps°'4' � ^�i: �
• � `� AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
� � . 'j, Full Document
Available upon Request
Report �
Geolagical Engfneering Services
Coal Mine Hazard Assessment
{:u�ni Property—i�Torthw�t parcel
Renton (King Couat3'), Washington
. _ March 22,2084
Project�No,.0336-004
Prepared For:
Aleg Cugini
Prepared By;
Icicle Creek Engineers,Inc.
EXHIBIT 7
)
Full Document
Available upon Request
Report
Geotechntcat Engiaeering Services
Proposed Property Development
Springbrook Ridge
King County Tax Parcel No�.
29230590Q9 and 2023059148
Renton, Washingtan
Jsnuary 26,2009
Proje�ct No.0336-004
Prepared For:
Alex G�gin�
Prepared By:
Icicte Creek Engineers,Iac.
EXHIBIT 8
'� t ''�' �#Ill���t #8. b)
Available upon Request
Preliminary Technical Information Report
(TIR)
for
AVANA RIDGE PUD
17249 Benson Road S and 10615 SE 172"d Street Renton,Washington
.���P°E"�S ti�'�
U��yP cr �
Z
�
�� �
�
RFG 5 ERE� G�=
�SS�ONAL �
ia•29•2���
DRS Project No. 15088
Renton File No. PRE75-000611
OwneNApplicant
Avana Ridge, LLC
9725 SE 36`h Street, Suite 214
Mercer Island, Washington 98040
Report Prepared by
� �
D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc.
620 7`h Avenue
Kirkland WA 98033
(425} 827-3063
Report Issue Date
�ecember 2s, 2015 EXHIBIT 9
�2015 D. R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc.
`''�'� � � AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
�. ..K�.-� ,:
.-- , �"� Sewali Wetland Consultinq, lnc.
- ---- ----- PC�Box880 Pttiorie2Si-85�9�Q515
Fall Gty,WA5�8024
Full Document
Availabie upon Request
December 22, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th Street, Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA
RE: Wetland and Supplemental Stream Study-Avana Ridge PUD
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job #15-159
Dear Justin,
This report describes our observations of jurisdictional wetlands, streams
and buffers on or within 100'of the proposed Avana Ridge PUD project in
the City of Renton, Washington (the "site").
I�
, .
, .
. �
;,o„+
.
� .
� .,
.�"
.� •�
, ;�°bs°
t
,� ��
Above: V'icinity Map of site
EXHIBIT 10
- - - --
�,i
SE172NOSTREET _____------ �
� _
._ .. . . . ��.--�____'_____"_"__ �
�'��..' _ _ '__ ���'��� ����_'��'_���_ '_ � �
,� I � f
� 1 g
� � !
\ y1E179Uy,pING EASTBUILOING I
�` ' �
� \` _ � ' ��'� �
_ E
.\` I ' _ I ' , !
� � � � I � i e
i �
` i i _
r m o au a `
fwe�rsT i/
cwroi»urt ::wo, �tys,, `,;-' / i Z
�-. S�� �.,.�. �� , ; g
�.._� � , � �. w���� / ;�� Z �
� ,.��:�r�..,�.� � �., �---- ��l �,,,� �" �
\ : �— 3
Ofi51)YlA{AMNXifIW�MftlN ��•�—I ' ��� ��,���.�5� Q � C �
. . --.T � d � ��
��� �,.,�ss�.���.��,�.�. �� �� ��
., � �r
�urruir�cwa�rwr�.uwmiwnw-�eurui�a . i ��3 0�
� artK/LMusIGM�aE�TMIFR11111M�51umLLLl�s[[nnuLn� ` ___�Ir' �'O � q 3 �
.� ¢ <¢ ��
�\` �� /'� oy � �
I E i V p
I `\�`__ � f"
I y�
u
@ �
- � ,___.. __._,� .� .... li u i � ` �
) _�, � ���1 r� I`��� �%,� MITIGATION PLAN SHEEi INDEX: �� I i
__ .._.
.._ 1 ..�__ �..�'—'—`J�_: � "�'---�----r�. ....`.'�1 '• �•� ��t.unwcwwwxn[w�s.�'.u„u.wa ' i
��.:._. A _ _ � I
� �,i�,,�__' "'. �l �\ ;''�;' � I
.
' MITI6ATION PI.AN NOTES:
��Y..�
\ �'� - CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: i.�rcwun+nno�mun+�nwlwomn�xusrnroaeaiunnarur
GENERAI NOTES: �FM°�"�����°n���
♦ \ �- ��� wumowo[ono�wwxccoxsui
�` ,_' ; �,: i� i.rusuwnarwmwe�w. ' Kwa�xo.w•s�..crox�a.saMawunwcsx.v��exroaraorw a
NlLOM11AKTIONSNMIlfWYfMMM¢�WMOM1.RIBRONmCF1. NSWIENMNNFM[Mt.AWMI[IIEif11E11Q:W11/lMS.
" i.I1EMUE5TNW11i�EN0111FtOMtl�li[1bNMEFTM6W�.IMOWNFM�MOCIIYO� MYIXMCf5.�x0AMIlOVfOYFIIMii(d0111bA �
\ w. ♦ ' �.. 'u .. ' IIF iOM. d
IMMMM411MAI1WlIfMLf4T10lM0YUl31M�fW111W1xFMTCM[DM(119qWFpIMfM111L�MGFTMmqIfWEfOY[bff51W1N[1WF )fOM110lY0Yl0U3WFF�YKNSWi1NMiNF��(�fS�VMNiN0f�1U111 3.�FldifT1FSTMiOfMI'ICLMf1111KfI0M.�ME{ONSTIIUI.l10XNEflMBMUff fI I
N YETv[[N 0110f YMOx.iM[OWM[R�MOT�E collnuCfaa,
NYMIYYOCb16�MY•�'T1xY'CMDOOIYW6Yi MOMJbY41NY`NY'fIqIY01N OBIIYOOMMI4fElIOM I.MYTKIIMTNFMNtSIRELUf11)
�AIMIR�FfICOPM6LWL�fCMVIiOf�OMT1E311E IF1$fR9(S��W�Of13 l.�WFMiMESE'IANfMUfTRQ11HE11M91FW1ENt�4MlV11SAUC110NtlW MTF.IIM/1N
Y�WllEii III�p111Alfll.1
S.PIA[TMYILN�IW[Of%AN}S�SEESNF[T]I� pypNn: E5`
fAM1IXMlTIGM: 6.CIGM-W�NOO[40Yl�II�IIOMNfE, �.M[OMLY[1MSMY�NIIEfroMSN�[f0I1MqNOW6MEOW1EiUfG11MD5, OMNMp/:FA11[� I
f1�IXVlL[S.NIpTf[TIVEFRw/�1[NT,f1IGGFµ�M.NYOfNf11NfFOFp �r���N tlllCllh'�. t3 �
1. NCYQiO�GIOWiXpMWY0115Wfffi./RIlAtlIMEINO�SNi�11YE:WIII�F�WDWIIM[IO�MOYNlWYOMrt�.YR4V�1qIWIfM KiiOh(IOMOrtiTTnF�MCMWM.4MiV[NMilllWMKAMDTO I
W�IUDTYNY.IOME�LW.�MIfM�IOG.UMflI1MM1FR�M�FiKK���l1NWM1NlNG.MNlIIOYFYLOWIL ).�FOUF]1sIlO4AV0�11fMDMifP[[TIONM9MONMEII. PMhRMMF�IYIMCp1N[CfGNWffH�MFIF11FO111MNCE0iMNO��t Ci�N�1��Yly. 1
. fMINOYf1.N11�I100iGOWNfY1GWIO�W015N1YY0Y{IWOMMIM110q.1UlA5llMNMOYFDfGW. LIOW�ON�XES�OM��.�NYWOMY�WRMX1MfTMVE1NNGMN-WM SItE ��
O.N�F11lOCOM�LLTFLLWIt�.WOfIpMRiO�1vOi�FMTOx. i�41 e LTUrsK� SHNLII[pUN[TM1fKCYNIMtW ��Mm����a�����.
s umunv�aoErnauinxro�K+ownM.�rooeswui��nueorv�w.vww�onsurzua�car.w�ucwuw�um� '' ,��,w�,,,.y,,..,oK,m.,,._�,,,.,p..m, �.�«,,rbw„o�r�,�,how��,��w«w.r�. Noxiaus !d ..
wvwc�aa�[xt•IaumpitwowR4lFxr. 9.corrt+.cramr110Nu1nMauux.cwVlc[uxx�w[cnONaawIL n.Fu¢oonln[a[lnwumxnna.lrrrtMrwuuSeNpcbcEor �
iulllllf M/JNTENMIU�0�F�IIOVqFOlI OMMFR ��TN45TMICIIMIFS TMf YND[MIIOIINOIbV11IqMp WNp(ipryp(
S.LTE[DMIXIiONfAMtYMYIK[OONSFIfONMIGA�TMEOFYEM. MNI�fOVTN�ESIWNOfl9lVfllrlOMCONiMIF0.�00l11011LLUPIT' ��OI� QS
�NOXIOUSWEEDCONTROLREQUIREMENTS: �o.wmeerocnuruns.uno.woHito�we. can'..nauw�ucorraw�Entuiaouwu�rc.�imsne�mans ioumnurowu�we �e�EnwEaHxnioun.vEarroEm�a, y'�`.��
' -+oww aa n�rc ww
� 0 W b �MOMFWMfI�IMiERMaV1WTIF511Y011TOM[S1Mf0�WOP1(.
EXHIBIT 11 �
a�
a
� AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
� �;� �;.,�
- Sewall Wetiand Consulting, lnc.
-- _._ __._ POBox880 Phor�253-R59-0615
FaIlGty,WA9�Q24
Full Document
Availabie upon Request
December 22,2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge,LLC
9725 SE 36`�Street, Suite 214
Mercer Island,Washington 98040
RE: Habitat Data Report—Avana Ridge
City of Renton, Washington
SWC Job#15-159
Dear Justin,
This report is in reference to the City of Renton's requirements for a Habitat Assessment
for the Avana Ridge project.
I
�
i
� �
ao,_,�:,�_;
.
:,.;:,: ��
;�irl4so
F
_.f_... ..'.a,�:i.
Abor�e: Vicinity Map of site
EXNIBIT 12
� ' �" AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
�
Greenforest Incorporated
Full Document
Available upon Request
December 16, 2015
Justin Lagers
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St.,Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
RE: Tree Inspection; Avana Ridge PPUD, Parcel Nos. 292305-9148, -9009; Renton WA
Dear Mr. Lagers:
You contacted me and contracted my services as a consulting arborist. My assignment is to inspect
and assess the condition of surveyed trees at the above referenced site. I received a topographic
survey of the site from DR Strong Consulting Engineers, showing the locations of the surveyed trees. I
visited the site on 10/15/15 and inspected the trees,which a�e the 5ubject of this report.
Neither parcel is developed.The site has a SW aspect with a stream delineated through the center of
the site, east to west. Both parcels are covered in native vegetation, predominately deciduous tree
species with moderate to dense lower understory.
TREE INSPECTION
My inspection is limited to visual observation from the subject parcels and the rights-of-way. Both
health and structure were evaluated.A tree's structure is distinct from its health. Structure is the
way the tree is put together or constructed, and identifying obvious defects can be helpfu! in
determining if a tree is predisposed to failure. Health addresses disease and insect infestation.
No invasive procedures were performed on any trees.The results of this inspection are based on
what is visible at the time of the inspection. I identified the species of each tree, confirmed trunk
diameter(DBH), estimated average dripline and rated the condition of each tree.
Bigleaf maples an this site have a wide age and size range. The largest and oldest maple trees are
generally in the poorest condition.A handful of bitter cherry are scattered throughout the site, and
all are viable. Black cottonwoods dominate the site in num6ers, and there are far more younger
cottonwoods than older. The oldest and larger trees are in better condition overall. Many of
cottonwoods as edge trees lean excessively away from the stand. Nearly all the smaller cottonwoods
are very slender. Although they are healthy and have no visible defects,their trunks are too tall for
4547 South Lucile Street, Seattle, WA 98118 Tel. EXHIBIT 13
x
sw i�4 secnoA I%ANAHRlD�,E NGE 5 E, w.M.
X
X ,. -�_.-�. — _-.�.-.�_._�.__ I . .
( �``
X \ E��. '�'_ __ � SE 112N0 STREET —_ � .,�.�---^^�-+-��-+'�—""'� .--�"-"' —
` 'Yr ��T' - �
\ Y� -
�\ ,� _ _
, ` -.. . �� - - _ - . .
• - - � ..,... . ...--. —, _ —._.—
�� � �__ -� . _� � - - _ - _- - - - _ _
- _ . �
_ __ , � _ �, ,R
J �
W ---__ _ .. . . -�-�_.:.�. .. ----. - �=-
� o , ,:. ,� - i
-�r �
_ � \ �_ .� ._, � �� _ - i
. Q � � �.: �„ � ; � � , , �c � -
. I /
> \`�,\ ��4,`.',�.� �S� X 1 � � �r�� ��� � :t
Q � �� �� �°"�
. � � � � .,� � - %
\ � � � , _ -- - --- - - ---
,, _
. �
_� .� .
. � ,,��.. ._
\ � ' ' ��c —
s,� . ,
, `�,,� ,� __ , _ -,--�-r-T-r
. ��{-.. _ _ '
\ _ _ _ - �-��j��� ..._ ' I � � � i
`�,.� . � � ,� - �- �£--��-. ' _ I i �
�£ �.� '-,-
. ,
, �,,.. ,', � ' �, :..,: ' � _� _ ��_ � -�- �l
r� �
. �
� � ! , ,
� � I:=>-.:' � I� .�i ��, � /
� �,,�� 1 � L��;�� -- ; �, � _ �,
, , ... ,
, r. � ,�-�.: - ."' o n , , , . ��.
.
� y ..�; � � _ �' �.
\ �- . o }
_ - _
. � � .- _
.
�;�,� � . .
. , ,
\ ,�-"�"� ,- , a� � � � j ( � _ 1,
,..;
,� ; O �t�,f$,. f`` \,�/�, ��� I
_, /
�\ - 0��, � (.,r-�, � �`� O /3„,'���y ) �.
- ��'�Qd.p -r� � '` ' /.
�\ � • ` � 'f �� � r � \� . i.r ^ �
�sc�c�o 1 =� '.�� .•4 � i /
� �
.n..n...��..��,'�'.��s.�,�.�.��r \\ `�.. � d- � � °.1 7�y ._i . / �� �
v.r �p( �{+ �, "'Y � .y , i �
iY�. )� rmiox1ewwu �/'y,.��,\. � �F�1� :1_� rS . , � 'y � : /
,r �' .S� �
.� .e^�, !� �+ b
�^1/O 1 r.°�.«er�ao,a.� \ 'J. � A •�, r '�'��,,�� V`" /�\p( �C�" �,'� ��'• . � �/
����`� "� �\��`.� ���r,� ` Jo . '�.,i"i \` „11/
�w� ���F �;�i ��` �` , / ��r!
OO�i��rcu K�1 �\J � \ �y� � . \ - �_�_ - /� 0�
Ja .. � � l� � - � \�/�! / -
� � rh�.:e�.wrvn.na.au�a �\ �`� ,��;,. ' -,, � � 1f .. _
�`.. � �M 1 ; �. �,..
.�. /�
F 7REF R£IENII(.M!CALCULAHQNS \\ `~� � � y ��f' /, �
� � � �
; �;�.:�d_�.�s '\ ,�� � x � � � / �,
,.���a�,:�,�a ,,. �
� K�� �„ �� ��� f /�
t = r���. ., or, .. �— �� +;,`
� �
�\ ���:�. J :�
s -�"�l,,+°°f / NO H
� � or.wik
� ,
� � / a �Kx�N
� _7�iA,w,-..,,,__.�..,__, 9 =—_. ��" ��s xmm - -�� p .� ;�, -�: AVANA MOGE PUD .is
..d.811....,.� I� - ,--1 aRsrnw+o W ��- � ._, ��aw+oc�nr+orwr
� ��i V���. ��cu�anvo enr�m�rrs a., R E N TO N
� oDYqaolwU `��a .�.—. u� w.
�W�MN��w�LOo�YW� y�W I _•••_•� •r� f'wu�� �w nr9/4wUiny/PuWk W a Cwt
� B� WiE �PRi ^��� –
DRS PR0.ECT N0.75088 A—N
EXHIBIT 14 �
a
� `��"' AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
F��� Document
Available upon Request
AVANA RIDGE APARTMENTS
REVISED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF RENTON
Prepared for
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Prepared by
�'�'�1�`f= ,� x -
�:. � ��
�VORTHWEST �_-
�RAFF/C EX�F14TS
11410 N.E. 124�' St., #590
Kirkland, Washington 98034
Telephone: 425.522.4118
February 2, 2016
EXHIBIT 15
Full Document
Availabie upon Request �"''' ' � AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
ry
y '� p
� �' , t� .� � � � �,� O �, S �:iQ�
iY
��' '�" '
, � � _y qi � �: w.
: �: :r r� '`� '�x � � � °M Q ;r+: �� y' � y.
4� � ��- � :` i, a Lc = ,: ' ti
�`I � � � `� 'ai;> '' 'R�� � � L�i� ��� �L' �4J ^:�.a QI ���.. �k 1,`.�i �.
w � ,. m 'k,� ; � � r Q a,`� m w F Qo
:c' t "r, #. 2 ` "`' � � � �:�F�•= a �, F � :,? c; hQ 2 3�'
Z i' ,�,``, . �r i O �f �. Q O d �: i.' `�` �
�r r .. " � o y a, c? '° L'Q a+ m, y.
�+ � � . '��� � �r�� a� d � � F � r a.�4 � .E �
, :�-'°,' -r a, ,�r „� �;� i;'_ ': m : O c �°'
" ` w� m � h` 0-, Q+ Q Q
2� �N y m �
: 9 ' ^ `n Q/ �� �•i.�
z g . � ', 2 � �
a Hiranaka D`ariiel `,1j31)2016 E �X >X X =;� �` �
. . ,
� < � - = :�;
b Radtke luliand Mike 1/31/2016 E X X X � `
_ X X X
c . Mo`ss -� Molly 1%31/2016 E=: , X ~X ;:' �(
d Ridenour Daniel 1/31/2016 E X X X
e Brooker '. Emi�ly.=" '� 1/31%2016 E, �X X' ;��
_ � , , - � :
f Goods Doug 1/31/2016 E X X X X X
g � By�nes�� � :-. Genevieve-- : ' 2/1/2016 E .'' :X�. .` <�, .X .� °. .X' �
h Miller Jerry 2/1/2016 E X X X
i ' Yadock, , 1Nendy : ': 2/1/2016 E X " 'X X X "
j Heine Molly 2/1/2016 E X X
k Cantu . Cery'n . 2/1/2016 E .; X X �' X. ; x , j( '
I Reitz Phillip 2/1/2016 E X X X X X
m ' Gray � Andrew;' : '; ?%1/2016 E X' ` ; X
n McMullin Kimmie 2/1/2016 E X X ' X
o Mu�phy Rhonda Rae 2/1/2016 E X . ; X' X "
p Hanawalt Jody 2/1/2016 E X X
X X
q . Skulstad Paul � ` 2/2/2Q16 E ', .X ��: x' �
r Faas Mark 1/30/2016 E X X X
s Cremton Dawn >; -1/30%2016 E ," ,X 'X X ':
v - ..
_ .,. . _-.: .. _
t Hanawalt Jody 2/7/2016 E X
u Miller . ' '1e�ry ,' ; ,' . . ,'4J4/2016 !" X `X X ; " }; , ` .
a',
v Yadock WendY 4/5/2016 E X X x < . : . ,.,
w,: Cantu ,°CarY� '`4/6/2016 E ;:` -X X � ' X � :X X`
x
Y
z
EXHIBIT 16
Full Documeni� � qG Q,g�T,�ry► #8. b)
Available upon Request � TEN 1/1r
Transportation Engineering NorthWest
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 21,2016
TO: Rocale Timmons,City of Renton-Current Planning,Senior Planner
FROM: Michael Read, PE, Principai,TENW
SUBJECT: Avana Ridge Traffic Impact Study—Peer Review
SENW Project No.3462
This memorandum documents my review of the Avano Ridge Apariments Revised Tio�c lmpoct Study,
February 2, 2016, prepared by TraffEx, site plan and site access/frontage improvement plans prepared
by DRS Consulting Engineers, and field work conducted in February 2016 related to existing site frontage
conditions, available sight distance, and a general field conditions to address trip distribution questions
outlined by the Ciiy of Renton.
Avana Ridge TIS Peer Review
The following is a general list of assumptions, methods, and conclusions I have verified or recommend
verification and or modification in review of the Avana RidgeApa�tments Revised T/S, February 2016:
• The study applies standard trip generation rates as published by the Insfitute of Transportation
Engineers in the Trip Generation Manual, 9�h Edition, consistent with standard practice.
• The trip distribution assumptions appear reasonable in general, although the overall total in Figure
4 only indicates 99%. The total number of trips during the p.m. peak hour however, appear to be
distributed to the proposed site access driveways. Given a majority of trips are expected to be
distributed to/from the south, the "equitable distribution" of estimated trips currently assumed
entering the site from SR 515 seems unlikely given that a majority of parking access will be
accessed via the driveway onto Benson Road. A directional split should be identified between
these two access points that reflects the "circuitous route" afforded by SE 172"d Street versus the
direct site entry onto Benson Road for both entering and exiting traffic. Also, the trip distribution
figure should be adjusted to better indicate the actual location of the entry driveway onto SE 172nd
Street�immediately east of 106'h Avenue SE�.
• Related to trip assignmenr, existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic counts between SE 172"d
Street and 108�' Avenue SE should be bolanced. In general, reported traffic counts at the
proposed site access location are directionally higher along Benson Road at 108'h Avenue SE.
Traffic operational analysis should consider the worse-case scenario and given fhe intersection
lransportotion Planning I Design � Trtiffic Impoct 8�Operations
PO Box 65254,Seatfle,WA 98155 � Office(206�361-
EXHIBIT 17
� � �
A�I�A��rl�t#8, b)
��►���' 1VO�THWE. Available u on Re uest
� 1�4�o t��2�t p q
Phone: 425,�
Mr. Justin Lagers March 26, 2016
Avana Ridge, LLC
9675 SE 36th St. Suite 105
Mercer Island, WA 98040
Re: Avana Ridge Apartments—City of Renton
Memorandum - Revisions to TIA per Peer Review
Dear Mr. Lagers:
The purpose of this memo is to provide revisions to the Avana Ridge Traffic
Impact Analysis per the recommendations in the March 21. 2016 Peer Review Memo
prepared by TENW. The recommendations dealt with:
• revising trip distribution and assignment due to a restricted site driveway access
to SE 172"d St. and also the shorter trip length using the Benson Rd. driveway
for south oriented trips
� balancing traffic volumes between intersections
• revising level of service calculations due to new trip distribution
• evaluating traffic queues on Benson Rd. from the SR 515/Benson Rd.
intersection
• evaluating left turn lane warrants into the site access driveway from Benson
Road.
Triq Distribution and Assignment
Figures R1 and R2 show the revised trip distribution and assignment of site
generated traffic in the AM and PM peak hours. The revisions reflect a restricted
access to SE 172"d St. allowing onty left turns into the site and right tums out of the site.
A careful design of the site access driveway should effectively eliminate most site
generated trips to the west on SE 172"d St. and to the north on 106�', 105�' and Cedar
Ave. Also, site generated trips oriented to the south were assigned to the Benson Rd.
driveway since it provides a shorter route to SR 515 than the driveway to SE 172"d
Street.
Page 1 EXHIBIT 18
�° �'` AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
.�-'�.."r------�.._
Denis Law c----
Ma or �{ Clty�f � ,iY �
Y E , ,- .. _y,..._ , �, .._._. ��..� 41. ��,
� ! ] ♦ +� �
�
��, `�\.. 1 ! t �. �j � !�a~1�,
:�� ', +'�N'C�'
April 15, 2016 Communiry&Economic Development Department
C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator
Washington State
Department of Ecology
Environmental Review Section
PO Box 47703
Olympia,WA 98504-7703
Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL(SEPA1 THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Qetermination for the following
project reviewed by the Environmentai Review Committee(ERC)on Aprii 11, 2016:
SEPA DETERMINATION: Determination of Non-Signiflcance Mitigated(DNSM)
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894,PPUD, ECF
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:�0
p.m.on April 29,2016,together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of
Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are
governed by RMC 4-$-110 and information regarding the appea) process may be
obtained from the City Clerk's Office,(425)430-6510.
Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete
details. lf you have questions, please call me at(425)430-7219.
For the Environmental Review Committee,
.,(�yltlfL�YtQ�
Rocale Timmons
Senior Planner
Entlosure
cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Divislon Ramin Pazooki,WSOOT,NW Regfon
Boyd Powers,Oepartment of Natural Resources Larry Fisher,WDFW
Karen Walter,Fisheries,Muckleshoot Indlan Trlbe Duwamish Trlbal Office
MeHssa Calvert,Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp.of Englneen
Gretchen Kaehler,Office of Archaeology&Hlstoric Preservatlon
Renton City Hall • 1055 Snuth Grady Way . Renton,Washington 48057 • rentonwa.gov
�` � AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
DEPARTMENT Of COMMUNITY D iryof
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Q��O� ���
ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
- MITIGATED (QNS-M)
PROIECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894,PPUD,ECF
APPLICANT: Justin Lagers,Avana Ridge,LLC
PROIECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Development
and Environmentai (SEPA) Review for the construction of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two
4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located within the Residential Muiti-Family (RM-F) zoning
classification and the Residential High Density (RHD) land use designation. The development would be
comprised of two separate multi-family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The subject
site is fronted by three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE) and Be�son Drive S (SR-
515). The applicant proposes one entrance off of SE 172"d St between the proposed buildings, and another
entrance off of Benson Road S.There is an unnamed stream,classified Ns,bisecting thesite which runs from east
to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-05o, the applicant is proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer
averaging. Additionally,the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be
used to vary street,building height,parking,design,open space,and retaining wall standards. The applicant has
proposed to provide buffer enhancement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along with the
construction of enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
PROJECT LOCATION: 17249 Benson Rd S
LEAD AGENCY: City of Rentan
Environmental Review Committee
Department of Community&Economic Development
The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under
their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental
impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the
lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen(14)days.
Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2016.
Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South
Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be
abtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,�425)430-6510.
�` `"�° AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
DEPARTMEIVT OF COMMUNITY D iryoE
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �y�Q,�Q� ���,��
PUBLICATION DATE: APRIL 15,2016
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 11,2016
SIGNATURES:
� � � `� i� /G
G gg Zimm an, minis r tor M rso ,Administrator
Public Works epartment Date Fire&Emergency Services Date
� �' � t�
Kelly Beymer,Administrator C.E."Chip"Vincent, Administrator
Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date
Economic Development
�"° �` AGENDA ITEM #8, b)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY �r-�� �irvoF �"
AND E�ONOMIC DEVELOPMENT `---"""' Renton '
DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNtFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM)
MITlGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES
PROJECT NUMBER: LUA15-000894, PPUD, ECF
APPLICANT: Justin Lagers,Avana Ridge, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Avana Ridge PUD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban
Development and Environmental (SEPAj Review for the construction of a muiti-family
development containing 74 units in two 4-story structures. The vacant 3.78 acre site is located
within the Residential Multi-Family(RM-F)zoning classification and the Residential High Density
(RHD) land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separate multi-
family residential structures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The subject site is fronted by
three public rights-of-way: SE 172nd St, Benson Rd S (108th Ave SE) and Benson Drive S (SR-
515). The applicant p�oposes one entrance off of 5E 17Z"d St betwesn the praposed buildings,
and another entrance off of Benson Road S. There is an unnamed stream, classified Ns,
biseding the site which runs from east to west. Pursuant to RMC 4-3-050, the applicant is
proposing impacts to the stream buffer through buffer averagfng. Additionafly, the site
contains critical slopes and Coal Mine Hazards. The Preliminary PUD would be used to vary
street, building height, parking, design,open space, and retaining wall standards. The applicant
has proposed to provide buffer enhantement as part of the proposed PUD public benefit, along
with the construction of enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
PROIECT LOCATION: 17249 Benson Rd S
LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton
Department of Community&Economic Development
Planning Division
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. An updated Coal Mine Hazard Report shall be submitted demonstrating the proposal wiN
not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond
pre-development conditions and the development can be safely accommodated on the site.
The report shall also discuss any measures employed in the final site/building design which
serve to mitigate coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant
shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. The updated Coal Mine
Hazard Report shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Cur�ent Planning Project
Manager prior to engineering permit approval.
2. One (i) Electronic Speed Radar Sign shall be installed in the northbound direction on both
106th Ave SE and 104th Ave SE. The applicant shall install the signs, mounting poles, and
assaciated equipment,at the direction of the City. All improvements shall be included in the
'� "'�'' AGENDA 1TEM #8, b)
engineering permit submittal for review and approval, and shali be constructed prior to
temporary occupa�cy.
3. The applicant shall p�ovide an off-site sidewalk, along the south side of SE 172nd St and the
west side of Benson Rd S,approaching the intersection. The width of the off-site sidewalks
shall be consistent with the widths proposed along the frontage of the subject site. ADA
ramps shall also be constructed at the southwest corner of the intersection. Finally,a street
lighting analysis is required to be conducted by the developer at the southwest corner of the
intersection of SE 172"d St and Benson Rd 5. If necessary, required street lighting shall be
provided according to City standards. All improvements shall be included in the engineering
permit submittal for review and approval, and shall be constructed prior to temporary
occupancy.
ADIVISORY NOTES:
The following notes are supplementa)information provtded in conjunction with the
administrative land use action. Because ihese notes are provided as information only, ihey are
noi subject to the appea!process for the land use actions.
ADV/SORY NOTES TO APPUCANT
The following notes are supp{emental information provided in conjunction with the administrative
land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only,fhey are not subject fo the
oppeal process jor[he fand use actions.
Plannina•
1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 am to 330 pm,Monday through Friday unless
otherwlse approved by the Developrnent Servlces Divlsion.
2. Commercial,multi-family,new single family and other nonresidential construction activities shall be restricted
to the hours between seven o'clock(7:00)a.m.and eight o'clock(8:00)p.m.,Monday through Friday.Work on
Saturdays shall be restricted to the hours between nine o'clock(9:00)a.rn.and eight o'clock(8:Oo)p.m.No
work shall be permitted on Sundays.
3. Within thirty(30)days of�ompletion of grading work,the applicant shall hydroseed or plant an appropriate
ground cover over any portion of the site that is graded or cleared of vegetation and where na further
construction work will occur within ninety(9a)days.Alternative measures such as mulch,sodding,or plastic
covering as specitied in the current King County Surface Water Management Design Manual as adopted by the
City of Renton may be proposed between the dates of November lst and Ma�ch 31st of each year.The
Development Services Division's approval of this work is required prior to final inspection and approval of the
permit.
4. A National Permit Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit is required when more than one acre is being
cleared.
5. The applicant will be required to submit a Final Stream Mitigation Report and Mafntenance and Monitoring
proposal. In addition,the applicant will be required to comply with all the code requlrements of RMC 4-3-050
Critical Areas. This includes,but is not limited to,placing the critical area within a Native Growth Protectlon
Easement,providing fencing and signage,and providing the Ciry with a site restoration surety device and,
later,a mainte�ance and monitoring surety devite.
6. 7he applicant may not fill,excavate,sWck or store any equipment,dlspose of any materials,supplies or fluids,
operate any equipment,instal)lmpervious surfaces,or cornpact the earth in any way within the area defi�ed
by the drip Ilne of any tree to be retained.
7. The applicant shall erect and maintain six-foot(6')high chain link temporary construction fencing around the
drip lines of all retained trees,or along the perimeter of a stand of retained trees.Placards shall be laced on
ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 3
''�'�° � AGENDA ITEM #8. b)
fencing every fifty feet(50')indicating the words,"NO TRESPASSING—Protected Trees"or on each side of the
fencing if less than fifty feet(50').Site access to individually protected trees or groups of trees shall be fenced
and signed.Individual trees shall be fenced on four(4)sides.In addition,the applicant shail provide
supervision whenever equipment or trucks are moving near trees.
8. This permit is shall comply with the eald and Golden Eagle Protection Ad. The permitted is responsible for
adhering to the U.S.Fish and wldlife Service Nationa)Bald Eagle Management Guidellnes(2007)and/or your
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service permit.
Water:
1. Water Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
2. A water availa6ility certiflcate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use
application.
3. Approved water plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review.
Sewer:
i. Sewer Service is provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District.
2. A sewer availability certificate from the Soos Creek utility was submitted to the City with the land use
application.
3. Approved sewer plans from Soos Creek should be provided during utility construction permit review.
Drainaae:
1. A geotechnical report for the site prepared by Earth Solutions Inc.was submitted for the project. The
geotechnical�epon mentions that the soil is till soil and is not suitable for infiltration. Alf geotechnical
recommendations shali be foliowed.
2. A Construction Storm water Generai Permit from Department of Ecology is required since grading and clearing
of the site exceeds one acre
3. Sufiate water system devetopment tharge fee is$0.594 per square foot of new impervious surface area,but
not less than$1,485.00. This fee is subject to change at the rate that is applicable at the time of issuance of
the utility construction permit will be applicable.
Transnortation:
1. The maximum slope back of sidewalk is 4H:1V for minimum 3 feet back of the sidewalk.
2. The corner curb ramps at all street intersections adjacent to the site should be ADA�ompliant. ADA also
requires matching ADA compliant curb ramps on the other side of the intersection.
3. The site is proposed to be accessed via driveways from Benson Road South and SE 172nd Street. Please refer
to RMC 4-4-080 for driveway design standards including location,grade,and width.
4. Street Ifghting is required to be provided on the fronWge streets by the project.
5. The City of Renton Trench restoration and Street overlay requirements will be applicable for any work in the
pubUc right of way.
Pa rks:
1. Park Impact Fees per Ordinance 5670 applies.
2. Street trees—Ginkgo on SR 515;Ash on Benson Rd.S.;Elm on 5E 172nd.Space mfnimum distance of 50 feet
apart and not close than 30 feet from street lights{not all Ifghts are shawn on plans).Potential far one to two
more street trees at NE corner of SR515&Benson Rd. Use only Ginko,Elm,and Ash as street trees.
3. Planting Strip:require a continuous planting strip along all streets,then sidewalk;plan does not show this.
Dangerous,fast traffic requires that a planting strip buffer pedestrians from roadway.
4. Parking Lot:some lsiands are too small for trees;use only vine maple or smaller in those areas.
en ral:
1. Ali construttion or service utility permits for drainage and street improvements will require separate plan
submfttais,All utility plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards.Plans shall be prepared by a
licensed Civil Engineer.
2. When utility plans are complete,please submit four(4)copies of the drawings,two(2)coples of the drainage
report,permit application,an itemized cost of construction estimate,and application fee at the counter on the
si�h floor.
ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 3
�► � AGENDA /TEM #8. b)
ci-rv oF
-.''"'�� �'.I�1tC�1'l. �
OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M)
POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION
PROJECT NAME: Avana Rfdge PUD
PROIECT NUMBER: LUA35-000894,PPUD,ECf
LOCATION: 17249 Bensan Rd S
Description: The applicant is requesting a Preliminary Planned Urban Oevelopment and
EnvironmenWl (SEPA) Review for the construdion of a multi-family development containing 74 units in two 4-story
str�xtures.The vacant 3.78 acre site is located wkhin the Residential Multi-Family(RM-F)zoning classification and the
Residential High Density(RHD)land use designation. The development would be comprised of two separete multi-
family residential strudures resulting in a density of 20.21 du/ac. The subject site fs fronted by three public rights-af-
way:SE 172nd St,Benson Rd 5(1QSth Ave SE)a�d Benson Drive S{SR-515).The applicant proposes one entronce off of
SE 172nd St between the proposed buildings,and another entrence off of Benson Road S.There is an u�named stream,
classified Ns,bisecting the site which runs from east ta west. Pursuant to RMC 43-050,the appUcant is proposing
impacu to the stream buffer through buffer averaging. Additionally,the site contains critical slopes and Coal Mine
Hazards. The Preliminary PUO would be used to vary street,building height,parking,design,open space,and retaining
wall sta�dards. Fhe applicant has proposed to provide buffer enhancement as paK of the pmposed PUD public 6enefit,
along with the construccion of enhanced open space,pedestrian amenities,and landscaping.
THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE(ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
ACTION HAS PROBABLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH MITIGATION MEASURES.
Appeals of the environmenta)determinatian must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.on April 29,
2016, together with the required fee with: Hearin� Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South 6ndy Way,
Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by Qty of RMC 4-8-130 and information
regarding the appeal process may be obta(ned hom thQ Renton City Clerl�s Office,(425)430-6510.
A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS tiEGULAR MEETING IN THE
COUNtIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FlOOR OF CIT'f HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON,WASHINGTON,
ON MAY 10, 2016 AT 11:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE PREIIMINARY PUD. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATIDN IS APPEALEO,THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PART OF 7HIS PUBIIC HEARING.
w
�. .
,
� �� ��
r� � �,,
.."�:.�: w �y��'�'�
� �
� ; ��� "�'�'� ,u
• �.. �;�� _
�
y..
'rt :�:;
i
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACTTHE CITY 0�RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT 425 430-7200.
DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROP�R UTHORIZATION
PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION.
� .
� `i�►
PROCLAMATION
a) Parks&Recreation Month-July 2016:A proclamation by Mayor Law was read proclaiming
July 2016 to be "Parks& Recreation Month" in the City of Renton, encouraging all citizens to
join in this special observance. Parks Commission Chair Troy Wigestrand accepted the
proclamation with appreciation.
MOVED BY CORMAN,SECONDED BY PAVONE, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
PROCLAMATION. CARRIED.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
a) RMAC"Arts and Culture in Renton": Staff Liaison to the Renton Municipal Arts Commission,
Elizabeth Higgens, provided a brief explanation regarding the duties and responsibilities of the
Arts Commission. She introduced Commission Chair Marcia Rollinger,Vice-Chair Mary Clymer,
and Member Mitch Shepherd who provided a presentation regarding the Arts&Culture
Master Plan, the importance of having a community that is rich with art, recent activities of
the Commission, and proposed projects for downtown Renton.
b) Governor's Smart Community Award:Assistant Director for the Local Government Division of
the Department of Commerce, Mark Barkley, presented the "Governors Smart Community
Award -ludges Merit Award" for the Renton Public Library. He stated that the partnership of
the City of Renton and the King County Library System led to the successful and award
winning renovation of the Renton Public Library which opened in August of 2015 after three
years of planning and two of construction. He attributed the success of the project to
considerable public involvement and reinforcement of the City of Renton's Comprehensive
Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING
a Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments:This being the date set and proper
notices having been posted and published in accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law
opened the public hearing to consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action
Ordinance.
Senior Planner Rocale Timmons reported that the Sunset Area is approximately 269 acres and
is located near the City center. She stated that it contains 3,000 duplexes on 240 acres, and is
near major employment, shopping,transit, and entertainment opportunities. She added that
the vision for this area is to have it be a destination place that is walkable and interconnected,
feels safe and secure,and where neighbors and businesses are engaged.
Ms. Timmons reported that planning efforts were initiated in 1999, and in 2007 and 2008
those efforts were formalized into two task forces. In 2009 the efforts of the task forces
culminated in the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy. She explained that from this
Strategy an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Planned Action was created in 2010.
The EIS had several key findings mostly related to water quality, air quality and energy,
transportation, noise, parks and recreation, and water and sewer utility infrastructure. In
addition to the key findings,the EIS proposed a range of alternatives,the first of which
assumed no action,the second assumed a moderate level of growth, and the third assumed
the highest level of growth.The City settled on a preferred alternative that was similar to and
slightly less than alternative three.
July 11, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
! �
�'r y�r'
She remarked that between 2011- 2015 there were several projects completed in the area,
including the construction of the Glennwood Townhomes,the Meadowcrest Early Childhood
Learning Center and Playground,the construction of the Kirkland Townhomes,the
construction of the new Highiands Library which is now open to the public, and finally the
Green Connections along Harrington Ave. NE.
In 2015 Council approved revisions to the Planned Action Ordinance, including the addition of
approximately 90 housing units focused on Sunset Boulevard, increasing building heights by
ten feet, creating a larger park, and reclassifying the local streets that serve the Sunset Area.
At this time, staff is requesting two minor revisions to the current Planned Action Ordinance.
The first being a shift of seven units from site five into site 11 of the Sunset Terrace Subarea.
The second revision is an expansion of two sites, in terms of area, by adding a total of five
parcels to provide for a more efficient layout for development proposals that the Renton
Housing Authority plans on constructing. She further specified that the Environmental Review
Committee determined that there were no substantive changes to the findings in the original
record of decision that would occur as a result of these revisions.Additionally,the mitigation
measures included in the project, as well as in the final impact statement, represent
reasonable steps to reduce any potential adverse environmental impacts.
Concluding, Ms.Timmons recommended that Council adopt the amended Sunset Area
Planned Action Ordinance.She noted the anticipated adoption date would be August 8, 2016,
following any potential recommendations from the Planning& Development Committee.
There being no public comment, it was
MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY CORMAN,COUNCIL CONCUR TO CLOSE THE
PUBLIC HEARING.CARRIED.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Chief Administrative Officer 1ay Covington reviewed a written administrative report
summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of
its business plan for 2015 and beyond. Items noted were regarding:
• Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in
occasional street closures.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
• Dr. Linda Smith, Renton, spoke regarding the diminishing resources provided to the
homeless people of Renton. She shared that the Renton Ecumenical Association of
Churches(REACH) Board of Directors recently eliminated the Director position at the
Center of Hope,as well as the breakfast program, and they will possibly reduce the
daytime center hours. She clarified some of the services that the Center of Hope
provides, and requested that Council re-think the authority and oversight for the
Center of Hope and to remove it from the auspice of the REACH program.
� Nancy Monahan, Renton, spoke to Council regarding the Fireworks Ban related to the
excessive amount of illegal fireworks used this year around the July 4th holiday.
Additionally she requested Council consider allocating more resources to addressing
illegal firework use.
July 11, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
�
� CITY QF
_� �
City Council Regular Meeting
7:00 PM-Monday, �ut ���
Council Chambers, 7th Floor, ity Hall— 1055 S. Grady Way
PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING— Topic• i�/rt�e.-E- PL�fN'�/ED �GT/o� ��'l�i�
• Each speaker is allowed five minutes.
• When recognized, please state your name &city of residence for the record.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
1 4
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code:
Email: City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
2 5
Name: N e:
Address: Address:
City Zip ode City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
3 6
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
....�.-
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
�
��ntinued From Reverse Side—PAGE �
� 11
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City ip Code
Topic: Topic:
g 12
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: To c:
g 13
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City Zip de City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
10 14
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City ip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
15 16
Name: Name: _
Address: Address:
City Zip Code City Zip Code
Topic: Topic:
u nse rea
�
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
July 11, 2016 �
� i
, �
----...,,� ,
IZE N T O N �� '�`-�� '
WASWING70N �'' " '
Ahead of the Curve � • '
Presentation C)utline
• Site Characteristics/Vision
• Su nset Area H istory v�= -���
—`; � _��� � � �`a�.� �
� ��
-- Sunset Area EIS �
,8 �� ' �
�---, � ,g
�., _.�� � �
— Planned Action � rdinance �
�ti ��,.
,�,
.
— Com leted Pro ects 3��� � � ,,.,�,� „ ��,�� ��
p 1 ..�: 5 , � � �
� i �
G ,�-. r._ �"+w�' .
' Approvals requested � ,= +ti . :N� .�� ��. ��:
; � �r p �' ,
• Revised Pro osal -�,`� ��, � * F �
p �
�� �°�T
� ��
. . -� ���,��: ��..w, � �,�: �
— Environmental Review -
-- Revised Planned Action Ordinance
v� �
� �.�� . �
s on
�� . �� ��
�r��� . � ��-: �.,>. . � � ���
� �� �
r� ��, �a�� � �
� � � , � g �,�� ����� ��� � �, r
� �
� � `� � � .� °�� � ����`� ' t
cfi,` �� ' � �€+,��.�� ;� �, e a x,`�§"��` .u�s���� r� �" �* �
a *� �'� �' �a� ,F� .,s��. '.`�: ',�' '�' �'�,m�a'��� �:'"��#' �;�.
� vN�`''� ,4 . '.'�i. . � Sr i _�'�"'��a i� ���
� � �Y „ ., tx $"Y
, > �
� , . , „ . �*���. � �
r �, �
�. t �X ��,� �.� � ,� �"�
i
. .. . # � . : . *t
� � .��. � � ,. � �..' ��
. �
.. ..zl .. < .. ,x ..� ... .... ., '
` . . '. . . ' .; :
w
� ��.�r��� � r���r �or��nected���� � r� � �
� .
_ � .
��
��� :
;�� : �
and secure � �$��# ��
- �, .�.��.
p �
q � ��,.� � �
� �. .
=""`"" �` "��
; ,� � ��2 � ._ : , «..
*,�+ �
,
�..,. � .
�� � � � �
� .
. ,�, � .
�
.
� �,��
, "�` �
, �.-
_,
.
�.. �, � , .
. �,�- �..:^�d� �� ~ x , �� �ar
F i � '* � � � F . �
�. �
} �.
v
� ,� z ; .: � r.B, `>�� .:'
r �
�. . . � �� .��..e �
� � r : `
. k ,+� .
�.�„ .�� ,�i �.Y �f 't. � a�.� '# �" �"` �
:W � �
r'�+ , _� �t
> �
. ° � ° � �
a
- �
; .,�..
. •, , s:�. w �„.
% ' I"
.�s� 1�. .-*�! �4�'
c
i �.
� , � � �. � . .:
. � :,� ,:. ; .' ,._ .:� �,.�;::. ..
, ._. . ,.. x�� 'a �.:
.,A ,J, >
�.� �µ ...� � .�
' �,.
�h
,..�,
�.r, , .. .��,
�
� �: :�.�:� Sunset Area Profile
� �
� �y ci'
. "�`.4'� � +"M
a�'� � �
� � �acres near the C�ty Center.
— Approximately 3000 duplex units �
were built on 240 acres of land . _ , �- t sE�� K n�:;,
. ���MEIKER t '. ... . � .�..�.��:.:. �
`. ISI.ANp: 1tEWCASfLE ��• r,�,". •.'. ..," �
— SunsetTerrace public housing- : sEa,�E -
,n �
1� rv / � � ��� � 'w sli�trtm, , ,
''��� � ..'..- ., '. •
&,. ����l` ._�.#'T����� ,.... kEN11)N
� Good access to hi �wa� s�A�and �w� `��"�...au�.�.
� v
• ;EATAC " fa>nea�+9Arex
tra nsit �
� a � �
�
• Close to ma 'or em io ment N��T `�����`
� pv �
shopping, and entertainment
opportunities
Sunset Ar�� 'st�r
• Initial Pianning Efforts ( 1999-2006)
• Hi hiands Task Forces I & I I 2�07-2008 f �� # � ���� � #
g � ) � :.�
� �
�'� ,� ��: �
• Sunset Area Commu��ty l�nvestment Strate���� �; �.,. .�
�� ��.� ��
• Sunset Area EiS�(20�.�1}
� �.
. ��'''"' � �:,�+�F���y��izr
F
• P I a n n ed Acti o n�.�rt��' ��� �a� .� �10 k ��.� ;
'�` � >'�" �:�., �� � � "��...,,�
• Completed/Curren���'�Q���cts � 2011-2015�
• Sunset Terrace Master Site P1an / PAO ( 2015� �
Request
• Revised Sunset Planned Action CJrdinance � h ,,, � a�
L �.p� �.
S ��� �� � €4'�
.�. �,r�. �y{�":4., wl,.�}�s��`}�.
w�.
��.�:t:'�:'�
.�... .�e� "9py(e�i�lYew! ! '�y..M...
Reevaluation Conclusions
• No substantive change to the findings in the original
Record of Decision wouid occur as a result of the
reevaluation . �
� Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposai
and identified in the FEIS, combined with additiona !
consu Itation a nd m itigation docu mented i n the
Record of Decision, represent reasonable steps to
reduce adverse environmental effects. �
• The 2016 Re-evaluation and Addendum would result
in minor revisions of the ROD and Planned Action
Ordinance to reffect the revised Master Site Plan .
Recommendation & Next Ste s
p
Staff recommends adoption of the amended Sunset
Area Planned Action Ordinance . The revised PAQ
. . . . �
wiii continue to implement the recommendations
of the Sunset Community investment Strategy.
N ext Ste ps :
� Public Hearing — Jufy 11, 2016
� P&D Deliberations/Recommendation — July 14, 2016
� PAO 1St Reading — August 1, 2016 _
,� �-° -, �:� f� �
� nd � � <,,�r' � ��,q ,� •f;,
PAO 2 Reading August 8, 2016 -__ �.� � � . F r�
_____.� �
�. ,
_ ,�. _ ,
�� � , ��f�
��` ;
„ ��.
`a- ��, ,,,er» � , �
�;� � 6 r�9� ��� ..
��!Y'J'� . ''�..
� � �y '`° 'a
..,r' '� m1 ,r� '�eY `�d
"? ��,r�,.� .:.-^� a �r ..
�`f c"�F ��''� e�,t^ ..
,�z �� ,«"' .
I
Sunset Area EIS {241 �� - Key Findings
r • I . -
Water Quality Will improve
Air Quality & Loca! increases; regiona! decreases �
Energy
Transportation Multiple mades improve
Minor improvements tn meet LOS
Noise Exceed HUD limits today and in future
Compatib{e with WSDOT guide{ines
Parks and Demand wili increase; need to consider variety
Recreation of options including City-R5D coordination and �
acquisition
Water & 5ewer Infrastructure is antiquated
5ewer improvements as per 2009 Plan
Water improvements — need loop system
Sunset Area EIS - Alternatives �2010�
. . ,
Alternative 1 No action. �
Alternative 2 Moderate level of growth based on investment in
mixed-income housing and mixed uses in the Sunset
Terrace Subarea, targeted infrastructure and public
services.
Alternative 3 Highest level of growth based on investment in the
Sunset Terrace Subarea with a greater number of
dwelfings developed in a mixed-income, mixed-use
style, major public investment in study area �
infrastructure and services.
Preferred Alternative Neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than
Alternative 3.
Purpose of the Planned Action
Ordinance
1 . Streamiine land use ermittin rocess �
p � p
2 . Facilitate the re aration of hased
p p p
s ecific site lans over time and allow
p p
the Cit to determine consistenc
v v
3 . Provide more certa i nt for mem bers of
v
�
the ublic and rivate develo ers
p p p
Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance
• The ROD and Planned Action Ordinance identifies
. . . �
mitigation measures from the FE1S.
• M itigation measu res add ress :
— Air qua{ity
-- Water resources
— Noise
— Transportation t
-- Parks and Recreation
— Utilities: Water and Sewer
Planned Actions (20'i 'i - 2�15):
SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT
SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITAUZATION PROJECTS
1 . Glennwood __ _ _ _
��. ...
Townhomes �-V--�µ � ` -
� �
2 . Meadowcrest ECL : �
and Pla roun : �, �
v�
� �
3 . Ki rkla nd Town homes �
��
. . _ .
4. H ig h I a n d s l.i b ra ry � �� �..�_�...��.. .�,._
��.���. 5� . : - _ '
. � .. . �.
5 . Green Conn t o � - i
��
. . ���. � w �
$ �.
r�� � �
� ti
.
�,�� ��,.
r�^� � � i
a w.
��4.
-w..� '�f�*'
�
What Chan ed in the Sunset
Terrace Subarea in 2015?
• Approximately 90 units were
redirected to the Sunset Terrace �.; , � . - .oaoa .}k ,., , ; �
� �._ ,": , �
5
Subarea — for a total of 722 � °°����`� °�`���� �� � �-/L. a, �' �� �', ` ° � �
� z , r
� 4 \s � ;� : � � o0
', t \�r-�'"T."'fi4l��i:l�.__�J._� `L�.21'.w',1'�{�` � '��
m u lti-fa m i ly u n its � ��='���,-�i q�j �- ��
�G .
_ �� � .�. . , R..
, � .�.� � �� � �
.Y, .
,��._....
• Building heights increased by no ���s -�X #� �� � �N. a -- �' �� ���
'f � .��} � Y� ,�'� i" »��.: ,, � �..:.�.
�':...' C�� '`�`��r•�i.� �•.....�.ne.�.6� �4N \.�'i, I('�„' �: .
more than 10 feet. -3 , � � ��-� '� �W ��- �`�
�``,�� `� ""' �' �`a r , ,...., �
, C ti .
{
�
k ,�, � �.'.�.' � ,"�''� _ �"
• The park was expanded to 3.2 �'� � � �" "� A� ����/�� �`�
:r .., f ���':'.. '�J' r. _
� . a� u..—� � �/ t� 'S
acres from 0.5-2.5 acres '` -C��'`�`�`�`��-�:`� ��, �' `,
l�� ', � b d f�' ; .'� t � R.. `� f`'}
.-�. ��' � -. '
� � „ o `� . ..� .. .._ 4, ,
; k .� „ rY,
• local streets, serving the Sunset � ` `,;=����°�u ��� �o �;�.���� , ��
� � � � ° �1 .�_..�
Area, were reclassified to allow �`�' ����``" �����=����-�-��-���� � �
a more efficient roadway cross-
sections
Planned Actions �2015-Present):
SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT
6. S u n set Pa rk M a ste r SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROJEGTS
, __ _. _._
- _ ._ _
_,
' �
P1a n w��, , � . .
I 4!
I �
��;:�.« . p ~.R� . .
�
1.5.3W . .....,� . .: .
�
7 . Su nset La ne '
�
8. Co I itts P h a : �
.,. - -. -• seurwan.ryu � , , .� � �{ 1
��EY<vgntn N�fOrNSr ��,% ! .
Tru.ryp � , LoaQ/unlunA , ,_ . Rainga -�j. J .
� SMa . ,. . • ' � ��= � , r�terpreirve ^-� . .
�Trre.typ , � . .• :t�§ ; [TM,� ,,� , t
Pe�eh,M
_ Stnye�Aria � � , � i .
��... Wstmcmt ,..., �t,,,� Ra�ngnrd� . C,. ' �� i
- • . vu..�yroo�n � �`� vcrr3c�fa� } • � . ._ �' .
. � �
..� ..
. � "NOf'fe � . � ... ,-=, t � . _.
, � {`,> �-+ . , y FOfan}?A
. � � Pufarr an<n 6nards^ � � '� " �;
� i
,
'�' Stati.y/ . '-rs .... " .\ � Art LMe . .
- � opw.tipoce r,.au 8a..,, r., . �) or Mn..�� ,. . ,.. ..
�'�., v„ �9 , tl�cyricJt . .. , ... �,w ..� . .. �.
y . � I� . � ' d, +vM <wn Ws+=.«n.�aa.vuaw�e
i�. x
� .. �'� rfu�te..typ � � '�gdrau.�t , � .. �... .
. Pergefn,t�ir � . � �p. ` - � - �
N �Sp Gal Ikn.:h�s . '� , _S, �, � . . ; .� .�. . .�..
c,•y . � ��,,..� Sy� "y �y� d ��� ���� � - .,� . .
—� 6,z vawnv�i �.+ �; ���1, �'`� :� JP°'�' .� ' ,,. . �.,.
. .ta � f�rnic � t s l � 5 .
� ... qus•bo . '��j � p� +}� �F nuss " ,.
�. `G. e���" � f; 4ib
� MGY�(@t QQtB ' � 1 Vork Wnte✓ ,. . . .
. � Pethwny� Geert�rt `�F'icnic.typ ..
Houting � `.�,>r� +gP [ooulda ':;'�'., .- � .
� - �. CMnnnrB . . � .
. . . . . � i�10113Mun� � � �� I
. .. . '� . S'll yi `�~ - '
��
� � � � �� - - Markst Rate II
.. . �� .:�j. . Housin,q/Mixed .
. A[tent ira�.[yy . US¢
Market Rate Housing Elevations
f _ _
, _ .
... _ _�: . .
, ,�_�� SUNSEI�LM D:F " "
" ��Illi . `�' , "
,,, , � ;!�. � r �r ; .
, . � . ---. _r ____ �..
._. r�^ �t i `^-�-� r Y-;. � � : i
�'�'• �(�...,� � ! , � � �= �
M � . ,
z � � ,, ' � Q
a : . ,
,,�., <�. �p f• .. .,. ' � ,..... j e w
.
, ��n � _.._.. ,'_
. s �'�.>t � ���»., � b
� z
� ('�, _..:.,. i ..�,� -
�,w, � •
t j�4 ( i�
, � _: �_:.,� -
. . ,
,
,•�. `�»..._ ___.._.. -�+�--------1.�_4 _..__. z.,_..._I
,�� ;,, � � _..
. . _ ,.. SUNSF?BLVD PdE ' . __.
� � ���� �, ��;, Colpitts Phase I
� a �4��..
� �i � �; �.
• Harrington Ave NE and Sunset
Blvd
• 26,300 SF Site - CV Zone
..�«. • 108 Multifamily Apartment
Units �
� • 2,500 SF Commercial Space
; m�� ��; • Complete Street Standards
��"" • Design District 'D' Standards
• Enhanced Modulation
• Street/Corner Orientation
• Enhanced Open Space
°°' " ` • High Quality Materials
• Completion: Fall 2018
What's Chan ed in the
Sunset
Terrace Subarea in 2 �
016 .
� i�� �427MA4FNF--. .
�__ __._____ ....,_ ._" � �` _
�� � ... .. .,.�.. ����� _ ...._ .. __. T _ '.__.. _.. _
_
, ..�_ - _.., _ ' '
_...
:. �� � � � � _...
� � �
_ ._ _.. �_
_c.
r.
� � `,�,, ,� �� � � lF_ , ---
��
,y ,.. �����=—�; � �� i --�=.�-- '�' ,''f
.� , ,
, � a �/�'� � 1 � 1� .1 ,; � � `.
I � " '' � � �
p� �
� 1� 'f� `� �\
�.f�t ��� � ie ✓ �_ �� � �f�- 1 ;v � � te `� � � �
.�/ � �' ,� � 1 k�, ° � . � �j� � � ��� to �'� �
, i�.�,�. .J` � Q t�� ,; 'y'� � �� \ \���� �..._.�� � �' . �r
�,�k'' � /� � D � ����,' , � � � �.•��,'
,�,� ��:3 � t j/ ��`'tr' �A� O d�` �;'v,'r` � ��
� �. 1 � ' ' �r� , �♦ � ��• �
�,��, � � �,.,�,� i` � �, ;�*�� ���, � .�, , � r= ��
. , �
,,
`� � �`� ' ,..,d, ��,f ,
��� \� �� 5 �"' ` � ' ; �' �' `� �m r`/ �r
y � ,. �y, � � �; a f _�'
I�,��, G�� ` �+i. ' ..� t
�y �
� "et�g �`' �`' �' ( '� �.
, , � 1 � :�� � � J
� � l �\ &, � p �r �t I N }}'��yy )
� . . I l l � -� �j�' � �i � �. � �p �'�� \/r ,
7 . ��" � � .1 `zek � �/ k�, ��3 � i l �{�. `� . `,,,
'��d '_ _�"� � s1, ��, �� � e � ��� � . � ���'�
.. � a rre I � �� � �
� i
,� . ,/ �. .1 t �e
� ' . _ � � �.
r
. � � � �` � �\w .i� .: � t . %
.
� �Yis � �,n.� ����
,.
�
I� i `'\,,.,, � . lr ', :,, �� . � � � ��,�
_.... r _..._._..,- �...r 1-,- �, ` i �
,
.. � � � �� '�.
- �--�„ �._ �-- q `"� 2015 =_�;._ _.�_r � �
� �'��'�` ' �' ° 2016
�
„� RHA
� �� _ �Q
�o
�. .�`� 2a�•.� z4s
.. ..,..3�t'u� ..sa �
�sao
*zs�'�
✓283
i.i'�� ,�, .
mo , ..
Y
{ :..� ` �� ..i
' ` �i
�" �
P,. , '� �] ' .
I;i� . ;.� " � fil. �:.
�% �
� r
;i�;,. ,�P .
.. . '.3t. _ � .�
iY
1''��' ` �
. � � �� =
, ,�o � NE ZOt" St, Glennwood
a � " - ' Ave, and Harrington Ave
1Tl9.. � ' :��.,�
4 � �..� ll �# � 9tl1 � ''�
248- RHA Affordable
,0 =, {, Housing Units
• Complete Street Standards
• Residential Design
;� .° r Standards
.
�� ���� '``� � ��'�_���� � ����� _ ��. ���� • Enhanced modulation
� ,
� ' } I
���,,� �zy . . � ;,,�.., � �; ��� ���. • Orientation
�w�` ' �����q .� ����� .�� ��� , . Open space ��
.
. ..
� �
�. .�� �
����� -
� , �� n � �
. � a ��� � ��� ��;� .,. � ��� °`� � • Enhanced landscaping
,. _
��„ v
, . �
�r. � w.
.,�• � r �
� �. .. _ .
� � �� �`� �� �► � �.� �� ���� �:.�, � ` � • High quality materials �
,
�
� � � � � � � � • Completion: Contingent
� ;�. ,.
� ° � � � " ��� ��� �� � upon financing
,� � .,; ,._.
a Ei�^GcAt�r�n�i—AHA "
, Jtw1�'la�u!�b� n�-F�A �� �
�1afr�to'.�,Fdu�Fyp ^ f -
1m�xes�.uup
,. i��152i�tM:rt-AHA � ......
� I:.i!:�.ilti(1(k4tfil'Y�Mi1� � ..,
il %i'Y�L:�'Hi,.�;`�J,•,pJlI�;1.;1Y .
STATE OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
CITY OF RENTON
PUBLIC NOTICE NOCITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal PUBLIC HEARING
Advertising Representative of the RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the Renton City Council has
fixed the llth day of July, 2016,
at 7.00 p.m. as the date and time
Renton Reporter for a public hearing to be held in
the seventh floor Council Cham-
bers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S.
Grady Way, Renton, 98057, to
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of consider the following:
general circulation and is now and has been for more than six months Adopting the Amended �
Sunset Area Planned Action
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in Ordinance
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King Au interested parties are invited
to attend the public hearing and
County, Washington. The Renton Reporter has been approved as present written or oral �o�„�„e�c�
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of regarding the proposal. Written
comments submitted to the City
WaS�llrigtOri fOT Klrig COUrity. Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on the day of
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues me hearing W�v be entered ��co
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was tne pUb<«neaz��g Te�o�a. �
Renton City Hall is in compli-
regularly distributed to its subscribers durmg the below stated period. an�e W;cn tne amer;�a„ D�sab;i-
The annexed notice, a: ities Act, and interpretive servic- '
es for the hearing impaired will I
Public Notice be provided upon prior notice.
Call (425)430-6510 for addition- �
al information.
Jason A.Seth,CMC
was published on July 1, 2016. c�ty c�erk
Published in the Renton Reporter
July l,2016.#1638158.
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is �
the sum of$82.63.
;
�
�9��' ���'1
inda Mills
Legal Advertising Representative, Renton Reporter
Subscribed and sworn to me this 1 st day of July, 2016.
,
� ., �
ale Gwin, Notary Public for the State of Washington, Residing in
Puyallup,Washington
� �
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative report
summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work programs adopted as part of
its business plan for 2016 and beyond. Items noted were:
• Preventative street maintenance will continue to impact traffic and result in
occasional street closures.
• The public was invited to join Mayor Law on Tuesday,June 21, 2016 from 3:00 p.m.
until 7:00 p.m. at the Piazza Park in downtown Renton. The Renton Farmers Market
celebrates "Kid's Day!"from 3:30 p,m.to 4:30 pm.which will feature a kid's talent
showcase followed by kid-friendly performer Ponte el Ritmo.They will also be
launching their Kid's Passport program to encourage kids to eat their fruit &veggies.
The Market will run until September 27, 2016 every Tuesday from 3:00 p.m. -7:00
p.m.
Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Mark Peterson introduced Fire Marshal Anjela St.
1ohn. Ms.St.John provided a brief overview of the department's fireworks education,
notification, and enforcement plan for 2016.
CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the Consent Agenda were adopted with one motion,following the listing.At the request
of Councilmember Mclrvin, Consent Agenda item S.i. wps pulled for separate consideration.
a) Approval of Council Meeting minutes of June 13, 2016. Council Concur.
b) AB-1687 City Clerk recommended approval of the 168 Development Rezone from R-10 to R-
14,along with the preliminary plat, Site Plan, and two street waiver/modification requests,
with conditions,for the .75 acres located at 16826 108th Ave. SE. Refer to Planning&
Development Committee.
c) AB-1689 City Clerk reported the results from the 6/7/2016 bid opening for CAG-16-004-
Duvall Ave. NE Pavement Preservation Project; and submitted the staff recommendation to
accept the lowest responsive bid submitted by ICON Materials, in the�amount of
$1,363,058.30. Council Concur.
d) AB-1692 Administrative Services Department recommended approval of the 2016 second
quarter 2015/2016 Biennial Budget amendments, increasing appropriations by$2,068,013,
with the total amended budget to be$686,217,258 for the biennium. Refer to Finance
Committee.
�
e) AB-1677 Community& Economic Development Department recommended a public hearing
be set on 7/11/2016 to consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action
ordinance. Refer to Planning&Development Committee;Set public hearing for 7/11/2016.
June 20, 2016 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
'�` � AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
AB- 1677
CITY OF
---.�....�.�.�n�A/� •
ent n �
0
• •- . � � .
SUBJECT/TITLE: Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Refer to Planning& Development Committee
DEPARTMENT: Community& Economic Development
STAFF CONTACT: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
EXT.: 7219
. . . � .
N/A
' ' � � •
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area.The NEPA/SEPA Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011. The number of
total dwellings currently under consideration does not exceed the number of dwellings studied in the FEIS and
considered in the Revised ROD and Planned Action Ordinance of 2014.The City of Renton is proposing to
amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA. The application includes
an expansion of an additional five parcels. An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any
changes to impacts associated with the revised master site plan.
:
A. Issue Paper
B. NEPA Re-Evaluation and SEPA Addendum Analysis
C. Master Site Plan
D. Draft Ordinance
� • • � � •
Set public hearing for July 11, 2016 to consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action and
authorize preparation of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance for first and second reading and
adoption.
✓
wrr °'�►' A GENDA 1 TEM #5, e)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY cirvoF
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT --��+'"''��Renton �
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 13, 2016
T0: Randy Corman, Council President
Members of Renton City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor
FROM: C. E. "Chip"Vincent, CED Administrator x6588
SUBJECT: Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments
ISSUE:
Should the City adopt the Sunset Area Planned Action Amendments?
BACKGROUND:
In May 2007, Council adopted land use and zoning changes for the Sunset Area
consistent with the work of the Highland Citizen's Task Force on Land Use and Zoning.
Building upon this work, the Highlands Phase II Task Force recommended a series of
community and City actions to revitalize this neighborhood. After these
recommendations were adopted by Council in 2009, the City commissioned consultants
to develop the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy to focus on how the City
could best leverage public investments. One of the recommendations of the
Community Investment Strategy was to complete a Planned Action and Environmental
Impact Statement.
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and adopted a Planned Action
Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for
redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area. The NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued on April 1, 2011. The Planned
Action included the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with
mixed-income, mixed-use residential and commercial space, and public amenities.
In 2014, the City, Renton Housing Authority (RHA) and Colpitts proposed a revised
Master Plan based on the selected alternatives of the ROD to promote coordinated
development among the property owners. The City studied changes to total dwellings,
setbacks, building heights, and also reclassified some local streets serving the Sunset
Area to allow for a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating
circulation. The changes to the development proposal to add more units, increase
� � AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
Randy Corman,Council President
Page 2 of 3
June 13,2016
height, and to address street standards, were evaluated in a NEPA Re-Evaluation,
pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD's) NEPA regulations, and a SEPA Addendum (WAC 197-11-706). The combined Re-
Evaluation and Addendum demonstrated that the Master Plan did not alter the original
conclusions of the NEPA/SEPA FEIS; no new or different impacts would occur as a result
of the modified plan. The Re-Evaluation and Notice of Revised ROD were issued on
December 8, 2014. An amended Planned Action Ordinance was also adopted on
December 8, 2014.
At this time, the City and RHA are considering amended plans that would:
• Shift seven units from the Sunset Terrace Apartments (Site 5) to the Suncrest
property(Site 11) within the original Master Plan area established in 2014; and
� Develop replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment on five
additional parcels located outside but abutting the 2014 Master Plan area.
Three parcels would be added to the Sunset Court Park site (Site 19) to be
developed with 50 apartments and townhomes. Two parcels would be added to
properties north of the "loop road" in the Harrington Park development which
would serve to provide 19 townhomes (Site 14, 16/17).
With the 2016/currently proposed revisions to the Master Plan and addition of the
abutting parcels, there would be no net increase in the total number of housing units in
the Master Plan area or in the Sunset Area neighborhood. However, consistent with the
flexibility allowed by the adopted Master Plan, some units would be redistributed. The
proposed developments would meet City standards for density, height, setbacks,
transportation levels of service, connection to utilities, and would be subject to City
parking codes, including procedures for modifying applicable standards.
It is expected that, with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned
or purchased by RHA or by private developers, there would be up to 722 total units on
the Sunset Terrace property including nearby land swap/housing replacement sites.
Public amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a
community gathering space, civic facilities, a new park/open space, retail shopping and
commercial space, and green infrastructure.
The changes to the development proposal require a NEPA Re-evaluation, pursuant to
Section 58.47 of HUD's NEPA regulations, demonstrating that the original conclusions of
the FEIS remain valid. SEPA also provides a process, using an Addendum to the prior FEIS
where new information or analysis does not substantially change prior conclusions
about impacts (WAC 197-11-706).
An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any changes to impacts
associated with the revised Master Site Plan. The re-evaluation, after considering the
� � AGENDA 1TEM #5, e)
Randy Corman,Council President
Page 3 of 3
June 13,2016
effects of the revised Master Site Plan and existing and supplemental environmental
documentation, concludes that no substantive change to the findings in the Record of
Decision would occur. The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EtS
adequately examines the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in
the Master Site Plan would not result in modification to those conclusions.
The 2016 Re-evaluation and Addendum would result in minor revisions of the ROD and
Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Site Plan. Staff is proposing to
amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action ordinance will continue to
implement the recommendations of the Sunset Community Investment Strategy.
'�' � AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
REEVALUATION / ADDENDUM
Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment � June 2016
Prepared By: BERK Consulting in association with CH2MHill, CRC, Mithun, Perteet, and Weinman
Consu/ting L!C
1.0 background/Need for Reevaluation.................................................................................................2
2.0 Sunset Area Alternatives ..................................................................................................................6
2.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Land Use Proposals.....................................................................................................................11
2.3 Development Standards.............................................................................................................17
2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals..........................................................................................19
2.5 Updated Land Cover/Impervious Analysis................................................................................19
2.6 Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications ....................................................................20
2.7 Phasing........................................................................................................................................21
3.0 Environmental Analysis ..................................................................................................................25
3.1 Land Use.....................................................................................................................................25
3.2 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................25
3.3 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................25
3.4 Transportation............................................................................................................................25
3.5 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................................25
3.6 Public Services............................................................................................................................26
3.7 Utilities........................................................................................................................................26
3.8 Other FEIS Topics........................................................................................................................28
3.9 Monitoring and Review..............................................................................................................28
4.0 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................32
Attachments
Attachment A—Cultural Resources Report
Attachment B—Traffic Impact Analysis—Sunset Court
lune 2016 1
�, RE�s�,���1��'A'Tl��ll #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
�,� ���:������3�jT���� ��� ���°���.�1 �`� � �
The City of Renton, along with the Renton Housing Authority (RHA), King County Library System, and
Colpitts Development, and community partners, is redeveloping the Sunset Terrace public housing
community, an approximately 7-acre site within the larger Sunset Area Community Neighborhood in
northeast Renton. The Sunset Area Community Neighborhood is shown in Exhibit 1. Sunset Terrace is
the central approximately 7-acre property in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment subarea of
the Sunset Area Community Neighborhood in Exhibit 1. The Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
subarea includes Sunset Terrace plus some peripheral sites that have been master planned for
redevelopment along with Sunset Terrace for a total of about 12.4 acres. Redevelopment of this area
envisions Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-income community anchored by a new public library
and a new park. Mixed-use sites will have both market rate and affordable rental housing in multi-story,
multi-family townhomes and apartments, along with commercial and retail space.
In order to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
requirements,the City of Renton issued the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEISJ for the City of
Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on December 17, 2010 and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement(FEIS)for the City of Renton Sunset Area Community Planned Action on April 1, 2011.1
The City served as the Responsible Entity (RE) for NEPA compliance, and the lead agency for SEPA
compliance.
In May 2011,the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with NEPA, and in
June 2011 adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with SEPA for redevelopment of the
Sunset Terrace area. Under SEPA, a development application for a site-specific Planned Action project
located within the Sunset Area (Exhibit 1) will be designated a Planned Action if it meets the criteria in
the adopted Planned Action Ordinance, as well as laws, codes, development regulations and standards
of the City of Renton.
The ROD and Planned Action established a range of growth and associated facility and infrastructure
investments (e.g., park, library, "green streets," etc.) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Study Area, for the neighborhood as a whole and for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, a site then
fully owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Redevelopment efforts have continued since 2011,
including issuance of a Demolition and Disposition permit for a Mixed Use Library redevelopment on a
portion of the property and a purchase and sale agreement with a private developer. This was followed
by a Demolition and Disposition permit for the balance of the Sunset Terrace property, which includes
both market rate and affordable dwellings. There would be no net loss of affordable units; RHA has
developed plans or has constructed units in the Sunset Area that could serve as replacement units for
Sunset Terrace when redeveloped.
In 2014,the City, RHA, and Colpitts proposed a revised Master Plan based on the selected alternatives of
the ROD to promote coordinated development among the property owners. See Exhibit 2. The City
studied changes to total dwellings, setbacks, and building heights, and also reclassified some local
streets serving the Sunset Area to allow a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating
circulation. The changes to the development proposal to add more units and height, and to address
street standards, was evaluated in a NEPA Reevaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of
Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) NEPA regulations, and a SEPA addendum (WAC 197-11-706).
1 CH2MHill and ICF International.2011.Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact Statement.
Final.April. (ICF 00593.10.) Bellevue and Seattle,WA. Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority, Renton,
WA.
June 2016 2
`,� R�'�$�l�E��1�'�'TI7��11 #5, e)
REEVALUATIQN AND ADDENDUM
The combined Reevaluation and Addendum demonstrated that the Master Plan did not alter the original
conclusions of the SEPA/NEPA FEIS; no new or different impacts would occur as a result of the modified
plan.The Reevaluation and notice of Revised ROD were issued on December 8, 2014.
Following the December 2014 NEPA reevaluation, the City approved a Master Plan including a new
Conceptual Plan for Sunset Terrace pursuant to Renton Municipal Code (RMCj Title IV. The revised
Master Plan included additional dwellings, alternative building locations, height, and street
reclassifications in the Sunset Terrace area. This Master Plan will facilitate the preparation of detailed
Site Plans in phases over time; provides a point of consistency with applicable regulations; and provides
more certainty regarding future development for members of the public and private developers. An
amended Planned Action Ordinance was adopted on December 8, 2014.
At this time,the City and RHA are considering amended plans that would:
• Shift seven units from Site 5 to Site 11 within the original Master Plan area established in 2014 (see
Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3). Sites are commonly known as Sunset Terrace Apartments (Site 5)and
Suncrest Homes (Site 11).
• Develop replacement housing for the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment on five parcels
located outside but abutting the 2014 Master Plan area—three parcels would be added to Site 19
and developed with 50 apartments and townhomes,and two parcels would be added to properties
north of the"loop road"to sites 14/16/17. Forty-four units would be transferred from Site 18 to
Sites 14/16/17 (+9 units) and Site 19(+35 units). Sites are commonly known as Edmonds
Apartments (Site 18), Harrington Park(Sites 14/16/17), and Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19). See
Exhibit 3 for the referenced sites and added parcels.
June 2016 3
� REh�SU��g�l�'�y,q+Tl1��11 #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 1. Planned Action Area: 2011
�'�CRyLimits � NE�215�� {��
PlannedAction5tudyFuea NE�21 T
�� ����t+�f � ��tl°� � NE TS
Subarea ,� � T � ������ �' '
'�:. ,yd`,� �_
CeMral NE:2aTFIST � e'� ��"�
North + � ' ��r a��;.i
� � +
,South �'�,� � ", �� #Sc =�
� "
NEI9TMST "" ; � � �"
SunsetM�edUsr � �� �s ' ,��`"'���
t ��x�; � � �.;?�!�' �°,
Poterrtial5unset NE�187N5T "� �, �� �
� `��Terrace Redeveloprnerx �� ���t� i � 4 � . �,
� a ��� � � �z �°�� � �o,� �k 1�7�THIPI
•�SunsetTerrace � TM�,-*` �� �"��.��$� 3<� �
N ���{�r�t a��_ � �� � �� `�d ���' RELT�FiST
Yt�°- �" �' *';�sa�z
� l�„�°' v"°�t� '� "�' �N�1ST H SaTYY �
�r ; �� , a,�r a
a �m iAan � :� ,� ,µ�ah� �t ,;�� �."��,„ aMt�M+y��
eet � ; g �;.���Z+,�x?.� 2���� �n''�'t �, �
� �� �����„�«s� Q��F15TN1pL
�
NE 14 HSTn � ,`°�a� . 3°"f ;��1���T C
NE�iSTH PL ���� �� ,� '�z�� "
�� �N������ �' � �, �° a4
NE 37H ST� �,;� kz� �g, �, � �� � �� ;g
� � �,. �M �h�
� � NE�12TN ST�,��� � y �
Lr '� "�� � �
� �2 .��r . �,
6 :`� �� r�°,�v� - pp� �.
z Kpi� O � ',�` a, '` >„g� �: NE�liTN��PL
� N�`Q� S ��w„��'����� ��`� �� z
Z �I �;° � Z �? �`� �h~`� � a NE�41TN�5T
Y+ +I'I '� 4'� Lf 55Y4 k
o '`s9 S� � °�� f z '
5,
��w x n
W �a, h ��� �,,f' ` 'W NE-lOTN P
y.a .� W
•� , � 's .�'� � ' �� �a i
s�, �1
�.1,
W. z
Il��i
�.
�
�.
vr
W`�ma'� � j�T",a �rh ��Y <
NE lOTH PL�� � �1ys��� ��
Y S
Q NE�lOTH�ST p �� t� `�w' w ��
� o y � �,�i ��,"
/;� o i fl � �'� � � �}z.' 9� � � ¢ NE 1AiN�ST
7` NE�9TNiPL W � � �r ,,,�"
� Q a
� , }
� W p '�." ..,�"�, K o z NE�9TH�
O E d ' W ' �
ME�9TH'S7 � �:� � �� � �� ��,'- � ;
wW *.� ��..:-"'' i
NE� F! d� " t'� z� J
2
����rN�, .$ '�. � N�'�"� NE�Sr�T
�� o �
•� Z aza� �i
MF 67i!At NF• ,� � NE 1�TH3T
r : a
� '
+rF+s�y.�� �sr �j V�,'i� � �1,
'�. i W a
�
soa�oe:atyotnenton;Kcngcounty �. NE�7TN P!
i
Planned Action Study Area
Su nset Area Commu nity Plan ned A[tion Fi nal NEPA(SEPA EIS
June 2016 4
i��/ RE�SUy���l��'�'TI7��11 #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 2. Renton Sunset Terrace Master Plan: 2014
__ _ , �.,:�.,�
�—__
---�: ,-------._--��_�_. ���-.__.____-_.__. // �
, � � -=�--�__._
�j ; , �
(j j� � ' j �� //�
; , ��,�, ,, ,
� } � . \'
. � � '�� �
l� j '° x �
� � � ��
�� �J � w + � �° j �
\`:� � r f�i� �m
V`�` � � � � �f/ ��
.� * �` /
� � �f ��wtz . ir ����
# ;;
�
i � G � �
�� � . � �
� , � � � �
� "�; �/i
�.� °� Jf
�`�'f � J U/J/
� ,!/�\.
--� 7� �\
KEY ,y !�� I �\
... RESIDENTIAI. � � ` � `
..��X��sE � ,�,.i ����- � f z
����N�� -- --._-�__1�. ;� �;
--�SITEAREA _.�.�,Iw�lr�^� �� ��
a� iar �oo� mo� .1.
RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP oecen�aca.ou M 1 T N U N
Source:Mithun 2014
Exhibit 3.Sunset Terrace Master Plan and Added Parcels: 2016
Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan
-� ��$,i�-t `-�--�..-- ; ._--
�
t � � �� �
� � ��
� � N �\� �* �' �
'�e`'�� ����� � � �� �
� � ,, � ��.
�, �, � � �-��
� , �` � ��;!
� ,�► � ;�� .�
� ,.
� °A � �
� � �' �� • .
� � � ��� �' � , .� �'
�
�:� � � �a'.��
J � �r
�
, �oaru� � �� �� � S�
�MIXEQUSE J � �
�CQMMUNITY i— i�����.
�.•—.STEAREA ��' �"` � ' �� ,�
1�`"'iw 7ir� l�
n ,ou=_'or �
REN70N$UN$ET JVREq M$p DECFMBEfl 0&2015
Source:Mithun 2014;Master Plan Amendment Area—conceptually drawn by City of Renton 2015
June 2016 5
�; REl�]SU9���1�'�TT�E��II #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
With the 2016 revisions to the Master Plan and addition of the abutting parcels, there would be no net
increase in the total number of housing units in the Master Plan area or in the Sunset Area
neighborhood. However, consistent with the flexibility allowed by the adopted Master Plan, some units
would be redistributed. The proposed developments would meet City standards for density, height,
setbacks, transportation levels of service, connection to utilities, and would be subject to City parking
codes, including procedures for modifying applicable standards. The new developments would be
incorporated into an amended Master Plan pursuant to RMC Title IV. Also, the SEPA Planned Action
Ordinance could be amended to include the revised Master Plan concept.
As with the changes previously evaluated in 2014,the revisions proposed to the Master Plan at this time
require a NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum to provide additional information about the proposal,
to determine whether the proposed changes would result in any new or substantially different
environmental impacts, and to assess whether the conclusions of the original EIS are still valid. This
analysis would also provide the basis for amendments to the ROD and/or Planned Action Ordinance, if
any.This Reevaluation and Addendum document is structured as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Sunset Area Alternatives
3. Environmental Analysis
4. Conclusions
�. � ��' ��
��,'�� �� �� r __.__ __.q. _._....__ _��____ __,_. ��`l�� r
i ��� _.......��..__._ � �
� �
F
� 'Y
:
�m� ��o��� ���:� �,6,� �� �,
The primary Sunset Terrace redevelopment � ?y� `�4, �Ff`
area as well as housing Replacement sites, � � ;;� ,fi
and areas of public investment are illustrated � �� ` ` � `�
; � '`�� :�Q �
on Exhibit 4. (See also inset map at right.) � 4 � ' � A°
The Master Plan completed in 2014 provides '''t, � ������
\ `�J��''�
a coordinated plan of development for both � �,- �/`��f'
the Sunset Terrace an d Rep lacemen t si tes. a f`' ��
The proposed 2016 Master Plan amendment �� � �' �,'` ,� /�"`� ���
would add properties into the Master Plan, � i �*., ,/
and redistribute some dwelling units, but I �� ,���,� ,.�
would develo the same overall number of � � �- �'� � �`�� �f
p ° `��� / �.
units as approved by the 2014 Master Plan. i ;
' ''0. ,;�`'� , l,.
See Exhibit S. ; �`�. �' �.
� �,.�
; ;
, � � _.__ � �� �
All sites on Exhibit 5 were evaluated in the i � ���?C� � �~�� � `
2011 EIS for the Sunset Area Community ` °` � \
Planned Action Area shown in Exhibit 1 and #-Master Plan Sites Jl1-��=rn �t r��s�F��'���>��t�#g��="�������������3�'�
Exhibit 6. Most of the Master Plan sites being
reviewed in this document were previously considered in the Potential Sunset Redevelopment Study
Area (shaded in purple on Exhibit 1) or were considered "swap sites" (where housing replacement could
occur) as shown in Exhibit 6. Three additional parcels abutting Site 19 (also lettered F) are added to the
Master Plan, and two additional parcels are added to Master Plan Site 14/16/17 (lettered E). See Exhibit
June 2016 6
� REIl,�1 SUy��g,�y�,T�� #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
5 and Exhibit 7.The 2014 Master Plan area totaled about 12.4 acres. The updated 2016 Master Plan area
would now equal about 14 acres.
June 2016 7
�, REP�►s�9���1�',�TTf��ll #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 4. Revitalization Projects: 2014
y
,�S,UNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT ',f
SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PRO;JECTS
,,�.., _,
t r
�..SF.n1" . � „j
_"_'_—'___'._."�"_"_. . j ,
( '_"_"�'�..._ . ..... . .... sr
� j i.. �_
� 'LfyJS) N � . � . � � ....
W�E i . . � ....I . ALtY Cnrek � l
S
_'J x . � . �� � m��
0 250 600 � � � � ' � ��
.�asa�.;r p
�:s.soo � _ _____�.!�
� jX �"—
NE15�F^">7 � .. ?.. . .. . . ' �
C'i Q '
� ,.y ., ' ramo � h:E`-7r1/Y,o�
; � N�. '.a+r,rie dG.nr i i
`63� �
,\ �7 M£.'7";iSf
Ne.7&iHq�. . ��
i. , Y
/"� � ,
� �
r_-!'.-� '�. : � > y� �
� j �
� "",�t '. 7'. �' � /�
��,. . . . ,/,• •�
� , . �.. .. . . . !
I. �4 � J��. �. . _.j
I � M1
`3�r3�' .. . ' .
i �
�
� �.
� _
�`f X � 1c
l , �,
� �
I �� �� rr;t -
� 7 2� � Z 'r`
- '�.+. ,�yfP Y ,�f.) . I :; :1
���' � � i'� . . — "'_ ' y ` q �'
/:^-~\ g y _ �� w ) F /- ��_f ... .rF�{' yi �
k
i �,,.�„'�� 4*�' y1V �Pll� U���. �
� ..%)l�ai'
/� c� r
_'_�' 5��� J� ,��. � _—_
�
I c� � '�„_"_J I_ _ISunseiPrraPlannmAaic�EiSBounJary
C �
�"^ � . ;� ,�f,/� SunsrATa�racePULlicHousngBountlary
�. � ��I RINSumstfxrxeSu��LeaRcwlawcmaMARaa�kNauanq
I. . .. �'.,i A.Glenw�riJT�wnncmss
i'. . . � �i B-KrklsndMmueiwm�nm�u
i� �. � C-E�manJSApaM1ment�s
� �i NF_'y 0-SunsdTrcncaoo3�mnnts
UT�
L i .HA(..Y I .�.�•` � 2 � ' r E.smsNixr..ero.nnomr
I �=,VF, st � F-s���»mwitro.,ieom�
j' � 'j
:;nraiv � � , c Pn,r�.����b�aa�m�<��s
I r '
j � .. �'�..1 (YhrsuaeM7urszPudiaMVevnePiojec�s
� _. . .. ... ..
I . � � � . -'�-�----� H-CNIpNaRxUenla Mixa�UsSP
<L '
� i.' ' 3, I ... A�{�T��$' . . ��,/�/ i-ColpnsResaenOaltAissaUseP
I� . '� .I.CNID��Aesden6alC
4
Q }'y '; � K-PaMmHd'D liErary
e � Hp7htartds Park
� ? I1 MQNsiqkbwtood' '. I -u�':. � �.aaama-� �xc..;ory
. ` i y Cerdet ..� NE�a
M-ounsvA Pazk
i� � �� N-SvnsdLanrLwplmpowmnnl
I�: . �� ' 0-NEIOtM1S65elEKansm.ImVroromml:
_ ��. �� �4t�e5ureaArmVuu�Prqeds
\' _ � -�}175 P-Mrob.M'�kalEs�ryln�rnngr,,r�ter
� � YS..
`
"�_'�,�"__"_i G-MnE:wr•,�efncxu�dePI3Y4�u+d
Rcti�eSu lA�mPudkPrtrty�s�
���R.He�n�4en Pv5 NFJGro-s C:nnx�i�nx.:toem�wNa RdiolA P�n�¢�I
`- � . .„, ���y�y ��S-MBhI�n2loLsraingPedEetrianCmnxlim
� {.011�111/Y[T ��r...��
CL��Fs+ rr��� OIRrRmmnHua�9���HOvmeOProR'KY
„rI(� �'i��,,�, fNheiftaMonHasngAUlhoiRyUxiiedP�opdM
.1 .S� S
�. X-La�arySka(2013)
June 2016 8
`�✓ RE�SU���,1�'Y,y�,TTf�fVl #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 5. Revitalization Projects: 2016
._,
ti
� �S�U�N_SET TERRACE REDEVELOPME,NT � j
SUNSET AREA C4MMUNITY REVITALIZATION PRO;JECTS
NE�2fST.",T � � .,G
� . f '.�__..___ .
.� � '_"�, __�"._'__'f..... ... ,.... ..._,+ v,
_ 1 '
NEi 20Th(5T N . � ��, s ; - 0 � t r:-.
� � �� ��. i � i�
w�e I ' � . � �
� �� ...� May Crcek
3 � _ j ��, � ��Z � � � � � Park � __�
0 .250 500 ��.. � � . -�
��sr , '"-, p i� � �
1:5�SW ' '-' � � ' ' _
� .
� � �� ; � ..� ,. ��� .._... .. ..... ......�._.....___.�.��
M1E YBYN$7 �-"—"-_
�
,
� � ��rg, � w '�. � ..
� � f � NE-f7Fry,o�
� � 1� '- N�a. � .
;` - i6,�Sy° �
i
7G7N q NE f7 XH S'T
i. NE <Y �
�:"- �
�','-�"_ � :... _ r
., r
w i
� �
( � . ._ � . }; � � .
� R �
�'
� ivE'�`� i ,i.�
��, , � � V ,.�
i .� � � < < ,. �
�' � � � �
I � � ��f /_�__�
. �� Z�� ._ i � � �w .
' � , �
' <.. -' ^_ � <
�' `� ' ... � I . A .
� ��:� X / .�. , ..� U
'� " — ' �-. .. ._ +��7}f„� �r`�� __ ..� �� �� `�V' . .
� �� . � ' / : - .'
{� W �
�"� �*7HN' �� / . � ?j W
� q q � � � l � �� ¢ Q
i..) � a... , � _� ,
�' w
� �� \� � ��; o � ; �----`n'J Htrsrraz��. w w
1 y � O
,y Y . g,
� ` �{ f`�f �h� � O;�A �
--L,� �^ "�, ��j� ���,�.. � , � Nt.qrrxsr
I �"� `�� � yJ m: i
,
L___;v, �� /2�/ �--% L�J�,��.�E,s�,n
� i", ,, ;I ���a,..������,�n
�; '� ,�
: ;� �,�...,T��M.�.�.��.�„�,
1" ��\ f, %� ' � x.cw�er,�nomn
f` '. � �i�� e-�umMa�w.ro.n�.
� 1
' �`
� � �
i �I �� c-eeroro+na.uzstsn��e�
n«rorHncr �� 'f�Er.§r�t�sL . � if.��'O�r:g o.swnr�.m�«aas�
. �' i�.���y � ( � �� . � �� . e'nsn�qa�rmi�(s�u.iv��
� ;q �'� �i� 'd �� . � �f.5unfelCaMk�+bI5h191
4FM�ALY -� r �� ++' I �J
� > �}
. � i� I ; ..'t� R? i � . 4i. �0-Sunae4Hanwc�54t11
. ! 'k�1,f � E � 1 ,}I Sum�tTivaPUMkrldPlut�PrvlMs
! � �� i � --_---
w ,�F.. � :.. H-CaWMaWvaeaollfiaauceAlsn�9)
Z W W � .., . _9Jjy. ��
�
iz z � . r f ��` � � 3.ca�n2.aaar�cnwmaue.etsraan�
;� �' t _ v .__�
� �. � �; ; }� � � �-ca�aa«a�ctsr.en
c `o li � 1
� �' � ( H"ghlendsPesk ` K-�'�4��dantsn+q
�
a � �� antlNeghDorhootl; �. � ��g7Hp� . t�qpn.+wsiwmwrrf.qq
3 Centar
. . � �� , i � � M.sumnrrk
. . �� � � N.^wbtllaMloppy�q�ewnrY
. t .....i. O�NE10h5M1Eqbnim.Nnpv.ens.b
� ...� t Ictlr�8YM�1rNPUlAeRo��N
N
. . � � ���?4k5 v.MeeaarcnuEa�rywmtqCe�r
`-�__;,.. . ,...�
"'— 0-Abed�rCmslFlCmuidePlyUwaM
� AdNe bm�llw PubHe PrqeG�
- '..�{���Vt�NemepynAve NF/Orcen CnnzcYons$�mYsbrqppp�{p�pp
� [ommuniryBEconomic�Deaelopment ��.J,,,�Cis-�abrro�aw��awna�emm�w�
.s.�.�..b .�.y„ " .
dnw aMmn�w�w��uomr o�.we no�
..__"'../'�'...5�"".:., �w,o�a�nmro���na.nam��
---- x.LiemySae(2ot31 #�MasterPla�Site
June 2016 g
� REIV�su����ry�T�� #5. e)
REEVAIUATIdN AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 6. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites: 2011/2014
Q Land Swap/Housing Replacement Sites NE S5T 5T
(��Gty LI mits �T ST
NE i5T
StudyArea � � i
Potential Sunset TM� ��'ti d
�Tertace Redevelopment � o
�! all;> �
N st � m
icQ� � Z Y
p 5m 1p� ST � s�� ��4.
� .O IYf I�RH PL
eef �
p� Z � .� �� � NE 177H S7
W � � N�1
s m S s Z NE 15TH 5T
4 "+ 2
Z
� � W � NE ISTH P�L�
q 4 Z �'� W
O
NE L4TH�ST Y � NE IaTH�5T �
a
NE 13iH PL �+
, �.� �
2
!�� O
NE 3tH�5T ��� ��
r
w �a.
� NE 1�2•TH�ST W
L
g = s
s a o
� NEQpBK9a g i �;,,���,�2' vJ0 � e Iff•7H PL
i A0
a 3 ���� yW : > NE 14TH'�57
C ��I�� � cj�� ,fc.y� _�;.
� ,�. � NE SOTM PL
� W
Z
Z y�~F � t
I
�NE 10TH �' �� S';y� a S
2 NE 1DTH ST '^ '� �
�' Z z '�
m 0 W
� u� Z Z�� W < NE lOTH,ST
��� NE 9TH PL I, W Z �
� � ` O
4 p�
W G K O Z NE TH T
NF M 5T � � o � �
; � � ? Z
W W Z
Ne sr►i a " � i �
; W
Ne�k a o � N�s,�Np�. Ncsnisr
„ � x
m ` Z Z �
� HF.67}�P! Nf � , NE$�N� � I NE M
�
_ �err+•c� � � i
a Y '"
M Saurce:Oty d Rer<an;Grg Cnunty
� � E H PL
w.�--�—' Attachment A
'�� SunsetTerrace RedevelopmentArea and Land Swap/Replacement Housing Sites
Surtset Area Community Planned ARion Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS
!N3'LRMPTtpWAt
June 2016 10
� �E�,su���,l��'�'Tl7��ll #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 7. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites: 2016
SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AND LAND SWAP/REPLACEMENT HOUSING SITES
NE 21st St
NE 20ih St He�Cu NE �`'� NE 21st St
i NE 20th St r1�� w
m Z
> �
¢ � a
gc 9
S, t,:..� � c�
8 NE,t9thSt il —
m '� +� �
NE 18tb St " '
$ •,
w m
z
� m NE 77th PI
S
� N�16�� � NE 17th St
i
m �
w a' Q
z v y�
T Z �
Z o Q Y �4
ro �
NE 14th St x � � NE.14th St
m �
NE 13th PI � � m
NE 13th St Q
W g
z �
� �
Z o NE 12th St
< � ��� w w
g Z = Z Z Z
NE Park Dr o � yJ�� ¢ > ¢
�
w ¢ �"i� �� � NE 11th PI Q �
�� � � �
� � J NE11MSt Z a
Cy d
�' rve�an Pi �
s
d� w �'
z
S d
e0` a
NE 10th St 9°c N�10�h Sr �
NE 10[h Aly NE 9th PI �
w
W w z
z z r
NE 9fh Aly �j Q c
y � 8 NE 9th Sf
NE 9th St � g .R
w �, �
NE 8N p1 � w "' _ �
¢ _ � m
m a W n
NEB�St � o a % � �'9 Potential Sunset Terrace
V W U plEs� Z ��-��-i Redevelopment
X
� � t m Q Land Swap/Housing
N�B�s Replacement Sites
NEsy�� 3 Study Area
m �•Master Plan Addition
x
"e o 500 1,00o n)
NE 7th St m � � �
Feet
:ill BERK�uaeeCityobRenWnOKngCounty,BERK2015
June 2016 11
� REh�SU��g►�y,�T�� #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDEIUDUM
�,� ���� ��� Pr�a�t�����
In total, 722 dwelling units are being proposed in the study area in this 2016 Reevaluation, which is to
the same as the number of units considered in the 2014 Reevaluation.See Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8.Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
Commercial
Land Area Total Land Area Total Square Feet:
location
(acres): Dwelling (acres): Dwelling 2014 and
See Exhibit 5 for Site Letters 2014 Units:2014 2016 Units:2016
2016
Mester Plan Sites
„ - 4,500-
Sunset Terrace and Replacement Sites:C through J 7.63 671 9.23 671 39,500
Library(Site K),Developed 15,000
Sunset Park(Site M)and Regional Stormwater Facility 3 Z� 3.20
(Site L),Installed
NE lOth and Sunset Lane Loop(Site N and 0) 1.61 1.61
12.44 671 14.04 67� 19,540-
Total Master Plan Sites ' S4,500
Other Sunset Terrace Study Area Sites:Glenwood 0.65 8 0.65 8
(Site A)-Developed
Swap Sites:Kirkland Avenue(B)-Developed,Library 2 1$ 43 2.18 43
Site for Future Surplus(X)
Other Employment potential in Sunset Terrace and 4,500
Replacement Sites
19,SOU-
Total Alt Sites 15.28 722 1�.� ��2 59,000
Source:King County Assessor;ICF Jones&Stokes et al.2011;BERK Consulting 2015
Two alternatives were addressed in the NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and the Planned Action
Ordinance as "selected" alternatives: Alternative 3 and a Preferred Alternative. See Exhibit 9 for a list of
net dwelling units. These alternatives represented the higher growth levels studied in the EIS. The
mitigation documents contained in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance were based on the range of
growth of the two Selected Sunset Area Alternatives.
June 2016 12
�,r RE(�y�SU��g'1��'�'T17��11 #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 9. Comparison of Net Growth in Sunset Terrace and Neighborhood Alternatives
Net New Growth
FEIS Preferred Reevaluation Reevaluation
FEIS Alternative 3 Alternative Alternative:2014 Alternative:2016
Dwelling Neighbor- Neighbor- ' ,. Neighbor- � �' Neighbor- _ "�
Units/Jobs hood � � � hood hood �� hood ' �
Dwelling units 2,506 2,339 2,506 2,506
Population 5,789 _ 5,403 5,789 $,7g9 <2. ^
Employment SF 1,310,113 � 1,247 444 : - 1,31Q113 1,310,113 �`
_ ��„.. ��:
1,259 944 �:� �- ��
Jobs 3,330 3,154 :� 3,330 3,330 -� �'�
, •.
3,192 �, ` �
� ,�
� � .� .. - ,., . � � .. ,'��. ,��>�.�;,..-:
a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites.
b Similar to the FEIS,includes the sites shaded purple in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 6,considered Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment subarea.This equates to Master Plan sites C,D,E,G to 0,plus site A.Sites B,F,and X considered swap
sites and included within neighborhood dwelling units.
�Does not include swap sites B,F,and X.
Source:FEIS 2011,BERK 2014
The purpose of identifying two "Selected Sunset Area Alternatives" in the FEIS was to define a range of
acceptable growth and designs considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment
plans in 2011, as well as the 20-year horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred
Alternative was similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space
and road network. The two alternatives were similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse
impacts and required mitigation measures.
Since the original FEIS analysis, additional site planning for Sunset Terrace and other properties has
occurred and some changes in the number or location of units have been considered. In 2014, 90 units
were added to in the Sunset Terrace Master Plan area (Exhibit 7), compared to Alternative 3 in the FEIS,
but the total number of units in the overall Sunset Area neighborhood remained the same. As well,
other site planning considerations were addressed regarding building height, etc. as described above.
The NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation conducted in 2014 showed no substantive changes in impacts or required
mitigation were needed as a result of the revised alternative, which is termed the "Reevaluation
Alternative." Per the approved 2014 Master Plan, dwelling units may be redistributed among sites
provided the Reevaluation conclusions are maintained.
While the net units in Sunset Terrace are lower in 2016 than in 2014 per Exhibit 9, this is a reflection of
the boundaries of the 2011 Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area (sites shaded purple in Exhibit
1 and Exhibit 6) that excluded Site 19 (also lettered Site F). Site 19 is included in the Sunset Area
neighborhood units.
Some potential dwelling units are proposed to be transferred among five individual Master Plan sites;
these are identified with the "box" on Exhibit 10. However, the total number of units that could be
developed in the Master Plan area would remain the same.
June 2016 13
� �
RENTON SUNSET CdMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 10.Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
Total Units Total Units
Neighbor Aues: Reviewed in Reviewed in
hood Site �ster Development Title Status Aaes:2016
Plan Site 2014 Reevaluation: Reevaluation:
Letter 2014 2016
q Glennwood Townhomes Constructed RHA 0.65 8 0.65 8
B KirklandAvenueTownhomes ConstructedRHA 0.77 18 0.77 18
:�C �,38 EdmottdsApartmeMs PartoCMasterSitePlan �:��. 1.7Q.��. 112 2.70 �68
�D �:�5 SunsetTerraceApartme�ts . PartofMaster5itePlan �: 0.51 � -�.54 O.Si :41
���- E 14,i6f17 Su�setParkWe54:Townhames2014/HartingtonPark2036 PartofMaster5iteP�an,Ameaded � d.55`+ <10 1.06 �� '+Y9
. F �.�:19 SunsetCourtTownhome52t?34�Su�setCnurtApartmenYs2i}76 �; PartofAAasterSiteWan,Amended �� U.88 �� ���25 1.35 5�
���� G -11 SunsetParkEast(Fi1ta}7awnhomes&Apts2014(SuhuestHomes2Q16 pattofMastesSiteMan "� 2•09.�� =57 1•Og ' 6�
. H �-9 SunsetTertaceDev.Building�k PartafMasterSiteWan '� 0.99�. �17 0.99 317�.
�..1 7(8 SunsetTerrace Oev.Building B Partof Master5tte Pian ��. 1.26��. i9G 1.18 146
�.. 1 �.6J7 Sunset7emaceDev.Bui�dingC � PartofMasterSitePtan " E{J4�: '�318 0.74 Y1D
�. K ���10 Renton Highlands library Part of Master5ite PteFl �� See H` '� Sea N
���� Re&�o�al5tarmwaterfaci�ity Partof Maste�5ite Plan ��.. See M�. ' See M
"M Sunsetpark PartotMaste�SftePlan : 3.20 3.2
. �� �t Sunset W ne toop fmprovemen4s Part of MasteF Site Plan �. 3.41` SAi ;
����O NE lOtt�Street E�ctenaion Improvements�� . Partof tvtastet5ite P{an �f . 0.28� 4.x0 �.. .
X Li6rarySite(2013) � Future Development 1.41 25 1.41 25
� total-MasterManSites '. �� 1, . it.44�.' .�571 1A64 ":: 671
.:.......... :.. .�.... .,:�....� ............ . ,. ��....... ".........� � ��.. ......:. . ........�....,............:.................:........ .... ......:�.. _ ......... �......... �...... ...... ..........
ToW I-All Sites .,..15.28 722 16.88 722
� ' � =MasterPlanProperties
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,Mithun,BERK 2014 and 2016
n
c�
z
v
n
-
m
3
�
�
June 2016 l4 `'
�' �E'�'S��E�LDI�'rY�1'Tl��ll #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
The 2016 Reevaluation alternative is similar to the 2014 Reevaluation alternative in almost all respects,
but potential dwelling units would be transferred as follows:
• Site 18 would be reduced from 112 units to 68 units (a reduction of 44 units)and the units
redistributed by 35 to Site 19(an increase of 15 to 50)and by 9 to Site 14/16/17 (an increase of 10
to 19 units).
• Site 5 would be reduced from 54 to 47 units and Site 11 would be increased from 57 to 64 units.
In 2011, the Sunset Court Apartment concept(Site 19) was considered as a "swap site"within the larger
project,whereby an existing park and parcels would be consolidated for a larger park.
On Site 19, the "swap site" is designed with the proposed Sunset Court Apartments. This will be a 50-
unit multi-family housing project situated on four tax parcels. Tax parcel numbers (and addresses) are:
722780-1660 (1144 Harrington Avenue NE); 722780-1665 (1156 Glenwood Avenue NE); 722780-1780
(vacant lot on Harrington Place NE); and, 722780-1781 (City park on Harrington Place NE). The three
additional lots are now included to make the design more conducive to the overall revitalization plan.
On Site 14/16/17, part of the Sunset Area Redevelopment in 2011, two parcels are added: 722780-1315
(1062 Glenwood Avenue NE) and 722780-1290 (1081 Harrington Avenue NE). The two parcels abut two
other previously studied parcels in the Sunset Area Redevelopment. Collectively these are called
Harrington Park. Approximately 19 townhomes and flats would be constructed on the sites. Six of the
parcels (two lots that are part of the Sunset Court Apartment project and all four lots that are part of the
Harrington Park project) contain one-story duplex residences that would be demolished.
Sites 5 and 11 were included in the original Sunset Terrace redevelopment area in the 2011 FEIS and the
2014 Reevaluation.
The Master Plan concept approved in 2014 would be revised per the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative
shown in Exhibit 11 below.
lune 2016 15
� �
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVAIUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 11.Reevaluation Alternative:Master Plan Sites
Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan
� �.ti. ,. v� �-_=�--,...-� ---�� �i�r
� � � � r# �
; � � ; �
� •_ �� ��
�ti� �� �� �" " � �
�`�' �� � � �f �
�� � � � �I
, � �
� ' *� � �' r
� �4 �
i: � �`� , 1
� � � � +�, ". � �' ,�i '.rr /
�x :; � � /
� I �
1■ � I � `��
�� �
� �
�cEv �
t 3 RESIOENTIAL � � ��� � � � �
� M«m use �'sr' I�_..—.�..
� coMMUNm _. `1'"..,,�i � � m
--. SITEAREA � ��~��"�� ' `` � Z
0' 700� 100' [L7 O
,1, �
RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP DECEMBEfl 09,]Ot5
�
Source:Mithun 2014;Master Plan Amendment Area—conceptually drawn by City of Renton 2015 '
i
�
�.11
June 2016 16 �
� RER,�i SUy���l�'y�Tl��l #5, e)
REEVALURTION AND ADDENDUM
2�� �����r�� �r�� �fi����r��
Sites proposed for the parcel additions and unit reallocations in the 2016 Reevaluation proposal are
addressed in this section, identified as Master Plan Sites 14/16/17, 18, and 19. Sites 5 and 11 proposed
for unit reallocations are also addressed. No changes to the other sites considered in the 2014
Reevaluation, and approved in the currently adopted Master Plan are anticipated. All environmental
impacts were addressed in the 2014 NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation.
��sl�ir�� ��i����
The Edmonds Apartments (Site 18), Harrington Park(Sites 14/16/17), and Sunset Court Apartments (Site
19)would be designed to meet allowable heights of their respective zones.
Sites 18 and 19 are zoned Center Village with a maximum height of 50 feet (60 feet is allowed if there is
ground floor commercial). Site 18 has been conceptually included in the Master Plan with no change to
the maximum height; detailed site plans have not been prepared for the property at the time of this
writing. Preliminary site plans prepared by RHA for Site 19 propose up to 40 feet in height under the
maximum heights of the zone. Sites 14/16/17 are zoned R-14 with a maximum height of 30 feet;
proposed heights in preliminary site plans prepared by RHA are below that maximum.
Site 5 was approved for greater height in the 2014 Master Plan based on a density transfer from the new
central park; heights of 60 feet are allowed instead of the standard maximum of 50 feet for single
purpose multifamily residential uses. The reduction of seven units is not anticipated to change the need
for the prior approved conditional use permit for the height increase above the zone standard.
With seven units transferred to Site 11, there would be no change to the conclusions that the site is
within the allowed zoning height of 50 feet allowed for single-use multifamily residential.
C��r��+t�
All sites are consistent with the density requirements of the zoning code or density transfer agreements;
Site 5 was allowed to exceed density in 2014 based on the density transfer from the larger park via the
Master Plan approval.See Exhibit 12. Density Standards and Results.
Exhibit 12. Density Standards and Results
Neighbor-
hood Site Master Revised Units Per Maximum
Letter Plan Site Site Zone Acres Units Acre Density
C 18 Edmonds Apartments CV 1.70 68 40 80
D 5 Sunset Terrace Apartments CV 0.51 47 93 80
E 14, 16/17 Harrington Park R-14 1.06 19 17.9 14/18/30
F 19 Sunset Court Apartments CV 1.95 50 26 80
G 11 Suncrest Homes CV 1.09 64 58.6 80
Notes:
R-14 zone allows a bonus density: A maximum density of eighteen(18)units per net acre,for assisted living,may be allowed
subject to conditions of RMC 4-9-065,Density Bonus Review.Affordable housing bonus in the R-14 zone:Up to thirty(30)
dwelling units per net acre may be permitted on parcels a minimum of two(2)acres in size if fifty percent(SO%)or more of the
proposed dwelling units are affordable to low income households with incomes at or below fifty percent(50%)of the area
median income.Per 4-9-065 Density Bonus Review:Up to 4 additional dwelling units per net acre.Densities of greater than
eighteen(18)units per net acre are prohibited.
CV Zone:Assisted living bonus:1.5 times the maximum density may be allowed subject to conditions of RMC 4-9-065;assisted
living units could achieve up to 120 units per acre.No such property is proposed at the time of this evaluation.
Source:City of Renton Municipal Code;BERK Consulting 2016
June 2016 17
;�, RE�Su,���l�')'A'Tl1��11 #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
�����3��
Subject sites will be required to meet City parking standards.The standards for parking are as follows:
Attached dwellings in RM-U, RM-T, RM-F, R-14, and R-10 Zones:A minimum and maximum of 1.6 per 3
bedroom or large dwelling unit; 1.4 per 2 bedroom dwelling unit; 1.0 per 1 bedroom or studio dwelling
unit.
Attached dwellings within all other zones:1 per dwelling unit is required.A maximum of 1.75 per dwelling
unit is allowed.
Attached dwellings for low income: A minimum of 1 for each 4 dwelling units is required (0.25]. A
maximum of 1.75 per dwelling unit is allowed.
The sites propose parking consistent with the standards for low-income attached dwellings which may
range from 0.25 to 1.75 per dwelling unit:
• Harington Park(Site 14/16/17): 19 units, 3 bedrooms, 25 stalls: Rate of 1.3 stalls per dwelling.
• Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19): 50 units (1 bedroom (12); 2 bedroom (20j;3 bedroom (18): Rate
of 0.98.
• Suncrest Homes (Site 11):64 units:8 townhomes would have 1 stall each and the 56 apartment
units would have 47 stalls.Townhomes would have 3 bedrooms.Apartments would have a mix of 1,
2 and 3 bedroom units.The overall ratio is 0.859.
Site 18 has not yet been the subject of a preliminary site plan, but will follow City codes as appropriate
at the time of application. Site 5 was evaluated in the 2014 Reevaluation and was found consistent with
City parking standards at that time, and would have parking consistent with City codes at the time of
application.
������ ���� ������
In the CV zone,common open space is required to be provided at a rate of fifty(50)square feet per unit.
The City may allow substitutions in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC
4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require payment of a Fee-in-Lieu of
Common Open Space.This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications.
The Sunset Court Apartments (Site 19) have a central common space of over 7,750 square feet, larger
than the minimum 2,500 square feet required (west of Buildings 3 and 4).
The Harrington Park development (Sites 14/16/17) has a common space of about 4,000 square feet (a
larger common area between buildings 1 and 2 and a smaller common area between buildings 3 and 4),
more than the minimum 950 square feet required.
Suncrest Homes (Site 11) proposes an open space of at least 9,025 square feet with both vegetated
landscaping and hardscape larger than the 3,200 square feet required. Features would include common
gathering spaces, play spaces, and on-site paths.
Private open space is required to be provided for each dwelling unit. Site plans show ground floor units
with patio space and upper floors with balconies. At the time of Site Plan Review, the Director may
approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have alternative private open space
standards if ineeting the overall intent of design standards and other criteria at 4-3-100(F) and RMC 4-9-
250(D).
��������
Based on the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) zoning standards, 15 foot setbacks are needed from streets
in the R-14 zones and 4-foot setbacks are required for unattached side yards. A maximum 15 foot street
lune 2016 18
°� REIti�SU����y�T�� #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
setback is required unless parking is accessed from an alley in which case the setback can be 10 feet.
Further the parking would need to be located 20 feet from the street.
The CV zone setback requires a minimum 10 foot setback which may be reduced to 0 feet as part of the
site plan development review process, provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback.
The proposed Harrington Park street setbacks are 10 feet from NE 10th Street, and otherwise 15 feet
from other streets (Sites 14/16/17). This is based on the parking being located behind the townhomes
and accessed at least 20 feet away from the street.
The Sunset Court Apartments plans (Site 19) meet the required setbacks of 10 feet from streets.
Suncrest Homes(Site 11) have minimum 10 foot setback from streets and other side and rear yards.
�,� ���i��t� �r�� I���r���rc������ ���������
Detailed infrastructure plans have not yet been submitted for the proposals. However, Sunset Court
Apartments (Site 19), Harrington Park(Sites 14/16/17), and Suncrest Homes (Site 11) will be required to
meet City standards for utility hookups,fire flow pressure, and stormwater standards.
�.� ���c����c� ���� �;���r � �����r���.��� �-�r�;������
The FEIS included an analysis of changes in impervious surfaces. Additionally, consistent with the
requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the original 2011 proposal was
evaluated with respect to potential effects on species listed or proposed for listing under the ESA.A
biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in
December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, anadromous fish protected under the ESA, and would have no effect on any ESA-
protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS corresponded in
January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of concurrence in May
2011.
Exhibit 13 shows the land cover analysis associated with the 2011 FEIS Alternative 3, and Exhibit 14
shows the analysis associated with the Preferred Alternative; both were addressed in the FEIS, ROD, and
NMFS correspondence.
Exhibit 13. FEIS Alternative 3 Land Cover Analysis
Total Total Total Effective
Total Area Impervious Pervious Area Total PGIS Untreated Impervious
Location (acres) Area(acres) (acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 Z.14
PotentialSunsetTerrace 12.64 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22
Redevelopment Subarea
Total 15.70 9.32 6.80 3.05 0.26 6.36
Notes:PGIS=Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkling,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
June 2016 lg
�,, RE,�s����'l�')'A'Tl1��11 #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 14. FEIS Preferred Alternative Land Cover Analysis
Effective
Total Area Total Impervious Total Pervious Total PGIS Total Untreated Impervious
Location (acres) Area(acres) Area(acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 2.39
PotentialSunsetTerrace 12.64 6.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66
Redevelopment Subarea
Total 15.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.15
Notes:PGIS=Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkling,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
The following table shows an updated analysis of the 2016 Reevaluation Proposal, indicating that the
total impervious area, pollutant generating impervious surfaces (PGIS), and effective impervious area is
less than FEIS Alternative 3.
Exhibit 15. Reevaluation 2016 Land Cover Analysis
Total Total Total Total Total Effective
Pervious Untreated
Location Area Impervious Area PGIS pGIS Impervious
(acres) Area (acres) (acres) �acres) (acres) (acres)*
Potential Replacement Sites 4.14 1.14 3.00 0.29 0.26 0.68
Potential Sunset Terrace 12.73 7.03 5.70 1.27 0 4.22
Redevelopment Subarea
Total 16.87 8.17 8.71 1.57 0.26 4.90
Notes:PGIS=Pollutant generating impervious surfaces
Source:Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,CH2MHill,BERK 2014;Schemata,Renton
Housing Authority,BERK 2015
Notes: Per FEIS&BA,assumes that 40%of the impervious area in the site would be mitigated with flow control best
management practices.Assumes that 35%of the 3.2 acre park site would be impervious.
In comparison to Alternative 3, the preliminary analysis indicates that total acres within the study area
as a whole is higher due to the added properties for replacement housing, but total impervious area is
lower due to the proposed designs of the sites, lesser Sunset Terrace right-of-way, and the larger park.
There are also less PGIS as there is less surface parking in the preliminary site plans for the 2016
Reevaluation proposal than in Alternative 3; RHA has also indicated use of pervious parking and
sidewalks for its developments similar to designs accomplished in the already constructed Kirkland
Townhomes (Site B, Exhibit 5). Effective impervious area is also a little lower overall than Alternative 3.
Therefore,the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative is in the range of the prior analysis and no further analysis
or conditions are needed in association with the proposal.
The City communicated with NOAA and received confirmation that no new formal consultation is
needed with regard to the ESA as the results are within the range previously received in the 2011 letter
of concurrence. (pers com, lanet Curran, NOAA to Rocale Timmons, City of Renton, October 30, 2015)
The analysis updated in 2015 reflects the adjusted Harrington Park and Sunset Court Apartments
portions of the revised Master Site Plan.The Suncrest Homes proposal (Site 11) is consistent in footprint
with what was evaluated in the 2014 Master Site Plan and associated reevaluation, and thus does not
change what was sent to NOAA in 2015.
lune 2016 20
�,"'` RE'ti,�,�'s�l�E��1�'Y9'�1'TTf��ll #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
�b� ����r 3���r� ��� ���� �3�s����i����� �������������
The City intends to amend the Master Plan per RMC 4-9-200 to add in the five new parcels (three
surrounding Sunset Court Park and two added north of the loop road with the Harrington Park
development). For each Master Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated.
See Exhibit 17. This Reevaluation and Addendum for the revised proposal will also result in minor
revisions of the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Plan.
Other development permits and approvals would also follow, such as lot line adjustments/subdivisions,
right-of-way dedications and easements, phased/detailed site plans and associated design modifications
where appropriate. Lastly, building and construction permits would be sought.
�m7 ��������
The redevelopment of the study area and broader neighborhood was anticipated to occur over a
number of years.The Master Plan sites will generally be phased over a 10 year period in approximately 5
phases.See Exhibit 16.
Exhibit 16.Site Phasing
Neighbor-
hood Site Master
Plan Site
Letter
Phasing
RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
A Glennwood Townhomes Completed
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Completed
- C 18 Edmonds Apartments Phase 5
� 5 ' Sunset Terrace Apartments Phase 5 -
E 14,16J17 Harrington Park ' Phase 5
F 19 Sunset CourtApartments 'Phase 4
G 11 Suncrest Homes ' Phase 4
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projeds
H 9 SunsetTerrace Dev.Buiiding A Phase 1
1 7j8 SunsetTerrace R�v.Building B ' Phase 2
J 6f7 SunsetTerrace Dev.BuildingC Phase 3
K 10 Rentan Highlands L'rbrary Phase 1
� Regi€�nal Stormwater�acitity Phase 2
M Sunset Park Phase 4
N Sunset lane Laop Irrrprovements �actended with Utitities
d NE 10th Street Extension,lm rovements Extended with Utilities
X Li brary Site Phase 5
=Master Plan Sites
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2016
June 2016 21
� �
RENTON SUNSET COMMUNIN AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 17.Matrix of Permits
A rovalsandPermits5ummer2014 FuhrePermits PermitswlthSiiePlanReview
o y 3 t+ _ `o
c c M 6 0 �Q � E o a c — � n a Y _ � �
NeiBAbor- Marter u �a a N a ' W �� - g E L " � ' f °C
h�neRe Pw�sne � .`^y_^ g a � a N� a d A d N g A - = 9 e a .. �
9 m'
� _ - - z � o de � g �"' N a' � � � � u°
� "s
Pro'ect Name .
RH0.5unsetTemce-5unsetAroaRe IxartcenteiMAfforda6leHeusi Unks . , :: �
C 18 EdmandsA artments % X � X X X
D 5 SunsetTerraceA artmeMs % X X X X % % X
E 14,16/17 Hartin ton ParkA artmen[s X X X X X X % x
F 19 SunsetCourtApartments X % X X % % x
G 11 SuncrestHomes % X % X X x
OtlierSunxtTerrace Pubifc and Privata�Pro ects��' �� �
H 9 SunsetTerrace Dev.Buildin A � X X � X R� X % � ��X X � X X X
I 7/8 SunsetTerrace Oev.euildin B X % X X % X X X X X X X
1 6/7 SunsetTerrace Dev.Buildin C X X X X X X X X % X X X
K ftentonHi hlandslibra X X X X NotA Iiw6le:Alread a roved
L Re ional5tormwaterFacili X X % X
M SunsetPark X % X X X
N SunsetlaneLoo Im rovements X X % %
O NE 10[h Street Eztension,Im rovements X X X %
Sources:Veer,Sthemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2016
n
c�
m
Z
O
n
m
3
�
�
June 2016 ZZ `'
i�+ REf4�1 SU���,�y�,T�� #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND AQDENDUM
�. � � � � � �.����
The analysis of each element of the environment below compares the conclusions from the FEIS
regarding Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative to the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative. It concludes
that the revised Master Plan would not change impacts significantly from those identified in the FEIS.
�a� ���� ����
The Land Use analysis in the FEIS concluded that the Sunset Area subarea would advance the purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and Center Village (CV) zoning district. It would serve as an incentive for
other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Anticipated growth would also help the City
meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. These conclusions are still valid for the 2016
Reevaluation Alternative which proposes housing uses consistent with zoning and developed in
coordination with the Master Plan.
�e� ����������
As described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Reevaluation Alternative will reallocate dwelling units among
sites, but all sites will meet zoning densities, building heights and setbacks, open space, and landscaping
per the code or per the Master Site Plan approval in 2014. Design standards will apply.
�.� �:�������� ���:����r���
Five parcels were previously studied for potential cultural resources as part of the 2011 FEIS (Site 11,
original boundaries of Site 19, and two Harrington Park lots on the south side of the property, i.e. sites
14/16/17), and a determination of "no effect" upon historic properties was issued by the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
For this 2016 Reevaluation, the added lots with duplexes on the expanded Sites 14/16/17 and Site 19
were studied for potential historic resources; Sunset Court Park was studied again for potential
archaeological resources. The report prepared by CRC (Attachment A) shows a new determination of
"no effect"as of September 22, 2015.
�.� 1"r�����a�r���i��
Based on the results of the 2014 Reevaluation traffic analysis, overall transportation conditions are
expected to operate similarly to the FEIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. The intersection LOS at
each study location is expected to be the same for all of the alternatives, in both 2015 and 2030. The
difference in average vehicle delay at intersections studied in the 2014 Reevaluation Alternative is
expected to be negligible compared to the delay with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative. Similar
mitigation measures as identified in the FEIS would still be required.
The 2016 Reevaluation proposal retains the same level of neighborhood growth per the 2011 range of
alternatives and the total number of housing units would remain the same neighborhood wide. A traffic
impact analysis was prepared for the Sunset Court Apartments to confirm the relocation of units to the
site (from 15 to 50 units) would not result in traffic impacts. No significant impacts were identified and
the City's level of service standards would be met. See Appendix B.
lune 2016 23
�; RE1�SUy���+�y�T�� #5, e)
REEVALURTION AND ADDENDUM
��� ��r�� ��� 1���r���i��a
The Sunset Court Park (Site 19) is being relocated to a central larger park with the Sunset Terrace
property redevelopment consistent with the adopted master plan. There are no changes to the 2014
Reevaluation and FEIS results.
�ry� ��s�sl�c ��r�����
The overall conclusions of the FEIS for Selected Alternatives is expected to be similar for the
Reevaluation Alternative since growth is the same as projected for the overall neighborhood and is
similar to the 2014 Reevaluation proposal.
��� �t���ti��
������
In the 2014 Reevaluation, a conceptual water main improvements layout for the proposed
developments identified in the conceptual master plan was presented in Exhibit 18 and remains valid for
the 2016 Reevaluation.
The City will require 12-inch water mains in all new public streets (Harrington Avenue NE, Sunset Lane
NE, NE 10th Street, Glennwood Avenue NE) to provide the estimated fire flow demand ranging from
3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 4,000 gpm based on the City Fire Prevention's review of various pre-
application submittals.
Portions of the water mains in SR 900 were installed by prior projects in the area.
The section of the 12-inch main in Harrington Ave between Glennwood Avenue NE and NE 10t'' street
was scheduled for implementation by the City in 2015 as part of the Harrington Ave Green Connection
stormwater and water improvements project. Another section has been installed by the KCLS library
project in NE 10t''Street and in Sunset Lane NE up to the west property line of the KCLS project.
A developer's extension of the section of 12-inch water main in SR 900 will be required to be a looped
water system.
The location of the new water main in SR 900 west of Harrington, whether it will be installed in the
existing roadway pavement or in the future unimproved right-of-way must be carefully evaluated as part
of the pre-design/design of the roadway improvements projects, and consider the need to
accommodate existing and future public and private utilities, rockery/retaining walls,street trees,etc.
Adequate horizontal separation (5-ft minimum and up to 10-feet) must be provided between the new
water main and other utilities,structures, or trees.
June 2016 24
� RE�SU���I�'�y�,TTf��l1 #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 18. Water Main Improvements
anceptuai Watermaln imptavements Layout � i
, or Gaiceptuaf Msster Pf�Praject
Rerrta7 Sur�set Terrace Radevetopment
� � 6y ADdoW Gelour-City ot Rmb�NOtar Enpr.Marrqxdlt?/14 ,
k
� ry� � EXIST.8-WCH
� � � WATERMAINS
_.. ! !
_. NE 12�" S�f, .__ _____ . ---.
-.� ..___ ,_ _._._r._ _
_
� � _ .. _.__._._ _
__ . . _._
j ___
� , EXIST.12-INCH
} WATERAMINS
i
i � . . �4 {I
� � �� —
3 »-k''�' rv�; ' 1
eLa ��� � �
i
�h`�.d d�la�`e�; �a � "
_ ��� �� �
� �
t Z � ' ���
� � .:� � �� 4��v��
�' > + � .; /
d 1 1 � NEW 12-INCH WATERMAIN
� (by Cdys Harnrigtan Ave Project
� � .
� ' p . ` in SurnmeNFai!2014) e
�`� � � � N � �' M' r`' /
,' � ' w � � ;s
� � f= � �
�� a� . , � �
� �"�� � � 1 �,� �'�
+ �. ( ��
E � ��
' 11
� � ..--." 14'16/4T �
� =A a
; �� � ` �
, , -.�'..- � r ' �;
b PO TiQN F
��� �
3 ,� � „�„ ` ����� WATERMAIM�O /�
' �^ " � ' BE INSTAILED BY !
�� " � KCLS PROJECT �'
s �w�.,
� "�. � v�� " � ��q� l
I v � ,
� � ' � FUTURE 12-INCH \` ��
� �,.. �. � � WA7ERMAfN3 / '
� �;� � {BY6EVELOPERS} �
� r �� �,.
� �� '�'i
� c .�
R �
� � �y" �,�
UTU E 1 -IN �H WA ER IN ���
(BY DEVELOPERS} �' �� 7/&��
Looped watermain(s)requirad
use t�reflow demand exceeds �: w �; '�� ��EXIST.12-INCH
,50U GPfvt
��N� � WATERMAINS
'_,gre uen t.
'_'�' __r,-._ > m. �.�
N `� ! �Yil" �� I
RENiGN SIINSEt AREp MSP ��.,��a r
� 1I:Y; �
�� �� Z�� 3��_-•_��
Note: See Exhibit for approved Master Plan.While the Master Plan has been updated since the above base map was
prepared,the concept for water mains remains intact.
����"�
Sites plans will be required to show the location of the existing sewer system in order to determine the
potential re-use of existing sewer (conditioned on lining the existing sewer mains and manholes)
provided the location does not interfere with the ultimate roadway/building alignments,
June 2016 25
�;, �E''�wr,�5�9��i�1�F�'J�Tl1��l11 #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
�,� ���1��` ���� ������
Generally, regarding natural environment topics (earth, air quality,water resources, plants and animals),
there are no anticipated changes to the overall conclusions or mitigation measures identified in the ROD
and Planned Action EIS since the proposed mixed use development activities are essentially occurring
within the same footprint and the impervious estimates in the FEIS and ROD will be maintained.
Conditions, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding Environmental Health and Historic/Cultural
Features are likewise unchanged. No environmental health conditions or cultural resources features are
known in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but in case such features are uncovered
mitigation measures would apply.
Built environment topics that are more suited to analysis under cumulative growth conditions include air
quality and energy. The level of potential greenhouse gas emissions and energy use may be slightly
higher in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole,
and overall FEIS conclusions and mitigation measures are still applicable.
Lastly, regarding socio-economics, housing, and environmental justice, it is anticipated that the overall
conditions and impacts regarding the potential for change in the neighborhood, need for relocation
assistance, etc. identified in the FEIS are still valid, as the study area would still redevelop from present
conditions to a mixed use, amenity-rich environment.
�.� �a����ri�� �t�� ���a���
The Planned Action Ordinance includes monitoring and review measures to be considered within five
years of the ordinance adoption; some measures are to be considered at the time of a NEPA
Reevaluation (compliance with neighborhood goals and Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design
rating system for Neighborhood Development [LEED-ND] criteria or equivalent), though monitoring and
review are directed to the Planned Action area as a whole. The City conducted a review in the 2014
Reevaluation.The next 5-year milestone, based on the effective date of the amended ordinance in 2014,
would occur in 2019. At that point more development in the area would have occurred and there would
be results to monitor.
Nevertheless, this Reevaluation provides a review of the Planned Action Study Area Goals and
Objectives and to the LEED-ND criteria in relation to the Reevaluation Alternative to contribute to the
City's future 5-year review effort. See Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20. In general, the 2016 Reevaluation
Alternative continues to promote a public and private effort to create a mixed use, mixed income
neighborhood supported by park, library, road, and stormwater improvements that increase quality of
life.
Exhibit 19. Goals and Objectives Reevaluation
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
Transformation of private and public properties in the The Reevaluation Alternative is based on the prior studied
Planned Action Study Area...is expected to meet the Sunset alternatives and continues to promote a mixed income,
Area Community vision,as expressed in the Highlands mixed use development with parks,library,and
Phase II Task Force Recommendations(City of Renton greenstreets to promote an affordable,connected,
2008a)and the CIS(City of Renton 2009b). walkable,and attractive area for residents and businesses.
• The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and
beyond.
. The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and
involved in the community.
. Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable.
lune 2016 26
"�r►' REI4,�i SU���„l�'�y�TI�M #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
• The neighborhood feels safe and secure.
• Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a
way that preserves quality of life.
. The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and
conduct business.
• The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.
• The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic
diversity.
For each of the major components of the proposal,the The Planned Action Ordinance,as amended in 2014,
following speci�c goals and objectives were developed to remains in effect.The City may update the Planned Action
be consistent with this vision. Ordinance with the amended 2016 Master Site Plan results.
1.Through designation of a Planned Action and Nevertheless the entire Renton Sunset neighborhood was
infrastructure investments,support and stimulate public considered a planned action area in 2011 and 2014 per
and private development. Exhibit 1;growth and general types of land uses are similar
and consistent with zoning that has remained the same
throughout.
The Reevaluation/Addendum demonstrates that the
Planned Action EIS conclusions remain valid.City
infrastructure investments for the planned action area
continue.For example,regional stormwater and
greenstreets are expected to be accomplished in earlier
phases.A loop road would be implemented as development
occurs and utilities are extended,with the Library site an
early phase of that investment.The proposed park is
enlarged and would be implemented when funding is
secured.
2.Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the The Reevaluation Alternative furthers the intent of the CV
City's Comprehensive Plan. zone for a mixed use center,providing housing,civic,retail,
and park uses.
3.Through the Planned Action and early environmental See Response to#1.A Demolition and Disposition permit
review,accelerate the transformation of the Potential was obtained for the Library site and a second permit was
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed- obtained for the balance of the site.
income housing and mixed uses together with places for
community gathering.This will also be accomplished in
part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision,
which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and
Disposition application in 2015.
4.Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental See Response to#1.The total amount of growth studied
review of Sunset Area roadway,drainage,parks and across the Planned Action study area remains unchanged
recreation,and other infrastructure improvements,and under the 2016 Reevaluation Alternative;redistribution of
analyze impacts of anticipated private development in some units was evaluated in 2014 and 2016.Both public
addition to Sunset Terrace. and private development is promoted in the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea as well as the
broader neighborhood.
June 2016 z�
�, REfvr�J SU���O�y,q�T�� #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
FEIS Goals and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
5.Build on previous City,RHA,and Renton School District The Reevaluation Alternative continues to further the prior
efforts and current projects.Leverage relationships and planning efforts.The library is under construction.The
partner with existing community outreach activities and parks plan has been adopted,and the subject park site in
resources.Recognize community desires documented in: the subarea is larger than in prior alternatives.The subarea
. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area will have a mixed income,mixed use development as
Citizen's Zoning Task Force(City of Renton 2006), anticipated in the Community Investment Strategy.
. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase 11 Elsewhere in the neighborhood an early childhood
Task Force(City of Renton 2008a), education center has been redeveloped and expanded in
. Highlands Action Plan(City of Renton 2009c), partnership with the School District.
• Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy(City of
Renton 2009b),
• Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan(City of Renton
2009d),
• Renton Parks,Recreation,Open Space and Natural
Resources Plan(estimated completion date September
2011),
• Utility system plans,and
• Library replacement(in process).
6.Create a Great Street on NE Sunset Boulevard,as The Reevaluation Alternative master plan concept
described in the CIS.Implement the City Complete Streets anticipates and recognizes the multimodal design of NE
policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Sunset Boulevard by matching the future right of way
Area green connections.Extend conceptual design of boundary studied in the FEIS.
improvements between the[nterstate 405 limited access
right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE,and include them in
the Planned Action effort.
7.Encourage low-impact stormwater management The Reevaluation Alternative would be developed
methods and area-wide solutions as part of a master consistent with the Sunset Area drainage plan.Regional
drainage plan to support development. stormwater in the central park and greenstreets(e.g.
Harrington Avenue NE)are expected to be accomplished in
earlier phases;some were under construction as of 2015.
8.Engage the community in a transparent process using The Reevaluation Alternative is similar to prior studied
available outreach opportunities and tools successfully alternatives that were developed with public engagement
used in prior planning efforts. opportunities.The Planned Action Ordinance amendments
are subject to additional public review opportunities.
9.Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, The Reevaluation Alternative has resulted from a
innovation and sustainable development for a healthy public/private Master Plan coordination effort.See
community.Recognize the importance and timing of response to#1 regarding infrastructure and civic
integrating housing,transportation,infrastructure, investments.
expanded economic opportunity,parks and recreation,and
the environment.
Source:FEIS,Appendix A,2011;BERK 2014
The official 2009 LEED ND project scorecardz published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a
guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group
on the scorecard,a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles
of LEED ND is provided in Exhibit 20.
Z See:LEED for Neighborhood Development(LEED-ND),available:htt : www.cnu.org/leednd.Accessed:August 25,2014.
June 2016 28
�,r REh�SU����y�T�� #5, e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 20. LEED for Neighborhood Development Criteria
Summary of Criteria Reevaluation Alternative: Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage criteria of the The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major
LEED ND rating system is to encourage development to transportation and transit corridor within the City of
occur within and near existing communities and Renton.Redevelopment of the site under the Reevaluation
established public transit infrastructure,as well as reduce Alternative would contribute to a mixed-use,mixed-income
vehicle trips.Development in smart locations also development already served by the full range of public
encourages a greater degree of walking of bicycling,which services on a previously developed infill site on a major
has personal health benefits. transit corridor-a"smart location."The master plan
concept anticipates and recognizes the multimodal design
of NE Sunset Boulevard by matching the future right of way
boundary studied in the FEIS.
The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and Design criteria The master plan furthers the intent of the CV zone for a
of the LEED IVD rating system is to promote safe,diverse, mixed use center,providing housing,civic,retail,and park
walkable,compact neighborhoods with high-quality design uses.The neighborhood is compact,and furthers
with a mix of land uses. walkability and quality design with a loop road,
greenstreets,and a new park and library.
The intent of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings The Reevaluation Alternative as expressed in the amended
criteria is to encourage development that implements master plan would implement FEIS mitigation measures
green building practices or introduces green infrastructure. and retain green features of prior studied alternatives,
This includes using certified green building techniques, including:
increasing building water and energy efficiency,controlling • Construction Emission Control:The FEIS recommends
pollution from construction activities,implementing that the City require all construction contractors to
adaptive reuse of historic buildings,and using green implement air quality control plans for construction
methods of stormwater management. activities in the study area,including measures for
reducing engine emissions and fugitive dust.
• Green Connections for Stormwater Management:The
Reevaluation Altecnative would include public
investment in Green Connections,a regional stormwater
facility,and would comply with a drainage master plan
for the study area.
• Energy Efficiency:The FEIS recommends that the City
encourage or require implementation of energy and
greenhouse gas reduction measures in the study area
such as compliance with the Northwest ENERGY STAR
Homes program and the Seattle Energy Code for non-
residential buildings.
Source:FEIS,Appendix A,2011;BERK 2014
lune 2016 Zg
�, RE�,su9�E��'l�'A'Tl1�M #5. e)
REEVALUATIQN AND ADpENDUM
�. � �� �� �
The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance
with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's)
regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume
responsibility for environmental review, decision-making, and action that would otherwise apply to HUD
under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the lead agency and proponent of the broader Planned Action for
the Sunset area which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) Revised Code of Washington [RCW�43.21(C).
The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the
Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final EIS to analyze
potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011.
The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify
any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall
Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping
process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly
consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the
Endangered Species Act (Section 7). As documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record, the
City received a letter of concurrence from NMFS in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS
memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The City also completed Section 106
consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard as
documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record. In addition, consistent with the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington
Department of Ecology(16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).
In May 2011,the City of Renton completed a ROD in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act, and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
The ROD and Planned Action Ordinance identified mitigation measures from the FEIS. The Record of
Decision (ROD) concluded that "[w]ith the application of City-adopted development regulations and
recommended mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no
significant unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to
proceed with Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation
measures imposed through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals
issued by the City of Renton and through conditions of federal funding." This Reevaluation and
Addendum maintains the mitigation measures from the EIS, ROD, and Planned Action and identifies
where the application of such mitigation measures (e.g., design guidelines) is particularly relevant and
could be included in permit conditions.
The City finds by this re-evaluation, after considering the effects of the revised Master Plan, as well as
existing and supplemental environmental documentation, that no substantive change to the findings in
the ROD would occur.The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately examines
the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in the Master Plan would not result in
modification to those conclusions. No new or significantly different impacts to the environment would
occur. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS, and additional
consultation and mitigation documented in the ROD, represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse
environmental effects of the proposed project. Together, these measures and would reduce effects to
lune 2016 30
� RE�su���l��r '�'TI��VI #5. e)
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
acceptable levels. No additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes proposed in the Master
Plan.
f����c���ibi� �r������€.=r�i�y�r�� C�������
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC)
Date: Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
June 2016 31
� �
Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan
� �____.. . � �. � � `�—'�--�--- � —.�
i ' � � %
i �
I �
�
<.
--� x � �.
�� �� �
�� ��� � � _ ����: �
� � � �
,
.� . � �
��,�; ��� ,� . ;
�� � � � /
� � � �—� ��' � ��
� � .. � .�t. �,
�� ��1.t61t7 �
� �. �
��, � /
� � �� �
1 � ,
�_t I � �n \ii /
\, `I �
■� J �
�� I ��7re ��
� n
KEY �'j �� ` \ Z
.`�:��:: RESIDENTIAL � � � �
� MIXED-USE �� � �� � � �
_.�---�—^—.� 1�t n
connnnuwrv ._.._._ -�( � `` ` m
—�—� SITE AREA � �_�'�
N 3
o ,o0 200 �o' � �
RENTON SUNSET AREA MSP DECEMBER 08,2015 �
`�"" °� AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NOS. 5610 AND 5740, ADDING FIVE PARCELS AND
REDISTRIBUTING, BUT NOT INCREASING, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING
UNITS IN THE SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND REVISING A
PLANNED ACTION DESIGNATED FOR THE SUNSET AREA PURSUANT TO THE
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findin�s. The Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A("GMA") and is located within an Urban Growth Area;
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and has
amended the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and capital
facilities specific to the Sunset Area;
C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development
regulations, and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area, as designated in Attachment A,
which will guide growth and revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public
housing redevelopment area identified in Attachment C;
D. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Sunset
Area, supplemented by addenda, that addresses the probable significant environmental
impacts associated with the location, type, and amount of development anticipated in the
Planned Action area;
1
� � AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
ORDINANCE N0.
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS, and attached to
this ordinance as Attachment B, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate the probable significant environmental impacts from development within
the Planned Action area;
F. Future development projects in and around the Planned Action Area will protect
the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development;
G. The public has meaningfully participated in the proposed Planned Action, during
comment periods, community meetings, and hearings, during and after the preparation of the
EIS, and the City has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to some of the
suggestions;
H. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by
RCW 36.70A.200(1);
I. The Planned Action Area applies to a defined subarea of the City boundaries
illustrated in Attachment A;
1. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action
area;
K. The City adopted a Planned Action Ordinance 5610 on June 13, 2011, and
subsequently replaced it with Ordinance 5740 on December 8, 2014 to reflect preparation of a
Master Plan for the Renton Sunset Terrace redevelopment area within the larger Planned
Action Area and to reflect integration of a Reevaluation Alternative in 2014;
L. A revised master plan for the Sunset Terrace redevelopment area was submitted
to the City on May 27, 2016, which amends the 2014 Reevaluation Alternative by shifting the
2
� � AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
ORDINANCE NO.
location of planned dwellings and master plan territory to include five additional parcels, and
redistributing but not altering the total number of dwellings studied or boundaries of the
designated Planned Action Area in Attachment A;
M. A NEPA Reevaluation, dated June 2016, pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), as authorized by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
regulations, and an EIS addendum pursuant to SEPA were prepared to consider the
environmental effects of the revised Sunset Terrace master plan;
N. The City held a community meeting consistent with RCW 43.21C.440 on June 6,
2016; and
0. The City Council held a public hearing on July 11, 2016 regarding new
amendments to the Planned Action applicable to the Sunset Area in order to integrate the
Reevaluation Alternative, outlined in the NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum.
SECTION II. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluatin� and Determinin� Proiects as
Planned Actions.
A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area
shown in Attachment A.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific
implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the
Draft EIS issued by the City on December 17, 2010, and the Final EIS published on April 1, 2011,
the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum published on December 12, 2014, and the 2016 NEPA
reevaluation/SEPA addendum published on June 10, 2016. The Planned Action EIS shall consist
of the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the 2016 NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum. The mitigation
3
� � AGENDA 1TEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
measures contained in Attachment B are based upon the findings of the above-mentioned
environmental documents and shall, along with adopted City regulations, provide the
framework for the City's imposition of appropriate conditions on qualifying Planned Action
projects.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned
Action E�S, subject to the thresholds described in subsection II.D below and the mitigation
measures contained in Attachment B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action
Projects pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site-specific Planned
Action project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets
the criteria set forth in subsection II.D of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes,
development regulations and standards of the City.
D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by
the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS:
(1) Land Use.
(a) The following general categories/types of land uses are
considered Planned Actions: single family and multi-family residential; schools; parks;
community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation;
services; utilities; and mixed-use development incorporating more than one use category
where permitted.
(b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include
those uses specifically listed in RMC 4-2-060, Zoning Use Table — Uses Allowed in Zoning
4
�` � AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
ORDINANCE N0.
Designations, as permitted or conditionally permitted in the zoning classifications applied to
properties within the Planned Action area provided they are consistent with the general
categories/types of(and uses in (1)(a).
(2) Development Thresholds.
(a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by
the Planned Action:
Land Use Development Amount
Alternative 3/ FEIS Preferred Alt
Reevaluation Alternative
Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units
Schools 57,010 gross square feet 57,010 gross square feet
Parks 0.25 -3.2 acres 3 acres
Office/Service 776,805 gross square feet 745,810 gross square feet
Retail 476,299 gross square feet 457,119 gross square feet
(b) The following infrastructure and utilities are considered planned
actions: roadways, water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities identified and studied in the
EIS.
(c) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may
be permitted so long as the total build-out does not exceed the aggregate amount of
development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that
development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with
Attachment B.
(d) The Renton Sunset Area Master Site Plan is included in
Attachment C and is to be used as a conceptual guide to redevelopment in that portion of the
5
� � AGENDA 1TEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
Planned Action area, together with the land use studied in the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA
addendum published on June 10, 2016, and the use allowances of the Renton Municipal Code.
(e) If future development proposals in the Planned Action area
exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review
may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172, Planned actions—Project review. Further, if
proposed development would alter the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS,
further environmental review may be required.
(3) Transportation -Trip Ran�es and Thresholds. Inserted below are the new
PM Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action area:
Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips*
2006 2,082 trips
2030 Alternative 3/ Reevaluation 5,555 trips
Alternative
2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips
Net increase from 2006-> 2030 Alternative 3,473 trips
3/ Reevaluation Alternative
Net increase from 2006-> 2030 Preferred 3,304 trips
Alternative
*all PM peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs
containing the study area
Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require
additional SEPA review.
(4) Chan�ed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official
may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental
environmental review is conducted.
6
� � AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City's Environmental Review Committee may designate as "planned
actions", pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, Guidelines for state agencies, local governments --
Statements -- Reports -- Advice — Information, applications that meet all of the following
conditions:
(a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified
in Attachment A of this ordinance;
(b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those
described in the Planned Action EIS and subsection II.D of this ordinance;
(c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other
criteria of subsection II.D of this ordinance;
(d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive
Plan and applicable zoning regulations;
(e) The proposal's probable significant adverse environmental
impacts have been identified in the Planned Action EIS;
(f) The proposal's probable significant adverse environmental
impacts have been mitigated by application of the measures identified in Attachment B, and
other applicable City regulations, together with any modifications or variances or special
permits that may be required;
(g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or
federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these
con.stitute adequate mitigation; and
7
� � AGENDA 1TEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
(h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW
36.70A.200(1).
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an
alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and
supporting documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to
qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements of RCW
43.21C.030, Guidelines for state agencies, local governments--Statements--Reports--Advice–
Information, WAC 197-11-164, Planned actions—Definition and criteria, and this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal
has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its
development parameters and thresholds, and with the Planned Action EIS's environmental
analysis.
(2) Upon determination by the City's Environmental Review Committee that
the proposal meets the criteria of subsection II.D and qualifies as a Planned Action, the
proposal shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject
to further review pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be
reviewed pursuant to the following process:
(1) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall
proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4-8-
8
"� �►° AGENDA ITEM #5, e)
ORDINANCE N0.
080.G and 4-9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall
be required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a
Planned Action shall be final.
(2) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall
be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as
provided in RMC 4-8-080.G, Land Use Permit Procedures, and RMC 4-9 as modified by RCW
43.21C.440(3)(b). If notice, in addition to the requirements of RCW 43.21C.440(3)(b), is
otherwise required for the underlying permit, the notice shall state that the project has
qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise required for the underlying permit, no
special notice is required by this ordinance.
(3) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the
Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and require a SEPA review
procedure consistent with the City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The
notice shall describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned
Action.
(4) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or
otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA
documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may limit
the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS.
SECTION III. Monitorin� and Review.
9
� � AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned
Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the
Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and
with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area.
B. This Planned Action ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five (5) years from
its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing
relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based
upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement
or revise the Planned Action EIS.
C. At the following time periods, the City shall evaluate the overall sustainability of
the Sunset Area Planned Action area, defined in Attachment A, consistent with Final EIS
Appendix A review of Goals and Objectives and LEED-ND qualitative evaluation, or an
equivalent approach:
(1) At the time of the five (5)-year review in subsection IV.B above.
(2) At the time of a NEPA re-evaluation pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.53, for
the Sunset Community Planned Action Area.
D. The City shall conduct a Greenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the
NE Sunset Boulevard design is at the thirty percent (30%) design level and at the sixty percent
(60%) design level.
E. The City shall review the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea at the
time of the five (5)-year review in subsection III.B in relation to the following evaluation criteria:
10
�'`` � AGENDA ITEM #5. e)
ORDINANCE N0.
(1) Contribution of final conceptual designs to 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) consistent with Final EIS Table 3.2-4, Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT.
(2) Changes in land use and population growth and resulting greenhouse gas
emissions of final conceptual designs compared to Tables 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 of the Final EIS, titled
respectively Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and Comparison of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
(3) Change in effective impervious area for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea compared with Final EIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 which resulted in a
decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions
as provided in Table 7 of the Planned Action ordinance Attachment B.
SECTION IV. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this ordinance or any
imposed mitigation measure, and any City ordinance or regulation, the provisions of this
ordinance shall control except that the provision of any Uniform Code shall supersede.
SECTION V. Severabilitv. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or
situation.
SECTION VI. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
11
� �" A GENDA I TEM #5, e)
ORDINANCE N0.
days after its passage, approval and after publication of a summary of this ordinance in the
City's official newspaper. The summary shall consist of this ordnance's title.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of , 2016.
Jason A. Seth, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of , 2016.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication:
ORD.1926:6/13/16:scr
12
�"'` �r�'
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 11th day of July,
2016, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the seventh
floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057, to
consider the following:
Adopting the Amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and present written or
oral comments regarding the proposal. Written comments submitted to the City Clerk
by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing will be entered into the public hearing record.
Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive
services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. Calt (425) 430-
6510 for additional information.
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
Published: Renton Reporter
)uly 1, 2016
Account No. 50640
STATE OF WASHINGTON,COUNTY OF KING }
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
PUBLIC NOTICE
Linda M Mills, being first duly sworn on oath that she is the Legal
Advertising Representative of the
Renton Reporter
SUNSET AREA
COMMiJNITY MEETING
Who: Residents of the Sunset
a weekly newspaper, which newspaper is a legal newspaper of AreaofRenton
general circulation and is now and has been for mare than six months When:Tuesday,J�,Uary 13, �
2015,6 pm to 7:30 pm
prior to the date of publication hereinafter referred to, published in Where:Renton Housing
the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in King Authority Office°°One-
Count Washin ton. The Renton Re orter has been a roved as scop°�Room 2900 NE
5'� g P PP lOth Street,Renton WA
a Legal Newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the State of 9sos6
What:What is the`Choice �
waS�llllgt011 fOI' Klllg COUIIty. Neighborhoods Initiat-
The notice in the exact form annexed was published in regular issues ,ve,°Wnac aoes�c me�,
of the Renton Reporter (and not in supplement form) which was fo��,e sUpSetA�ea,ana
re ularl distributed to its subscribers durin the below stated eI'lOCI. how can I participate?
g y g p Please join representatives of the
The annexed notice, 1: Renton Housing Authority, the
Ciry of Renton, and other Choice
Public Notice Neighborhood Team members
for an evening of discussion
about the U.S. Housing and
Urban Development, "Choice
was published on January 2, ZO1S. Neighborhoods Initiative." What
it is and how it might be imple-
mented in the Sunset Area.
� °"€ � �j�� °� r Language assistance for attend-
The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is , , . �,.:; � %i� ees ��,rh limited English profi-
the sum of$91.�. , , r¢�, ciency may be provided by �
y ;" notifying Eli�abeth Higgrns at
l f°' - 425-430-658/ or ehigginsnn ren-
v ...� ` r} ` !
1j,�p, ^�y��� �- �-' � J + � ' tomva.eov in advance of the
r.�r�r / r a � P
meeting. Attendees with visual or
L da M. Mills '.� i" �'-� hearing limitations may also
:�; ;. `�� '' _ request assistance in advance of
Legal Advertising Representative Renton Reporter r. r
� :,� � iy +*., the meeting.
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2nd day of January, ZOIS. �iE_ �,.` t In case the event is canceled due
a,r '.; �� t ^:�: to snow, the meeting will be held
"'�i;;y,�.i,,.,,.t,�.�`"'� at the same place and time on
�, ; � �� ��� ���� Wednesday,January 2!,2015.
Published in the Renton Reporter
Ka hleen C. Sherman, Notary Public for the State of Washington, on January 2,2015.#1211740.
Residing in Buckley,Washington
Dece_mber 8, 2014 "�''° Renton Citv Council Minutes '`'�"' Pa�e 371
pay a fee in lieu of replacing trees when it is determined by the Administrator
that site constraints preclude the planting of replacement trees. Fees would go
to the City's Urban Forestry Program.
D-112 Administrative Code Interpretations: Sixteen interpretations, which
have already been in effect, are proposed to have their related code language
updated. �
The Committee recommended that the ordinances regarding D-101, D-104, D-
105, D-106, D-108, D-109,and D-112 be presented for first reading on
1/5/2015.
MOVED PRINCE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED.
RESOLUTIONS AND The following resolution was presented for reading and adoption:
ORDINANCES
RESOLUTION#4236 A resolution was read declaring a moratorium on accepting applications for
CED: Medical Marijuana, business licenses or permits for medical marijuana businesses and
Moratorium Extension establishments involved in the sale, manufacture,distribution or use of inedical
marijuana; and establishing a terminatiori date for the moratorium. MOVED BY
PRINCE, SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCILADOPTTHE RESOLUTION AS READ.
CARRIED.
The following ordinance was presented for first reading and advanced to
second and final reading and adoption:
CED: Sunset Master Plan EIS An ordinance was read establishing a planned action for the Sunset Area
�� �v � a� pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act. MOVED BY PERSSON,
d SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL REFER THE ORDINANCE FOR ADVANCEMENT
TO SECOND AND FINAL READING. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE#5740 After second and final reading of the above-referenced ordinance, it was
CED:Sunset Master Plan EIS MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE, COUNCIL ADOPTTHE ORDINANCE
AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
The following ordinances were presented for second and final reading and
adoption:
ORDINANCE#5741 An ordinance was read amending Subsection 1-3-1.B.of Chapter 3, Remedies
Attorney:Amend RMC 1-3-1.6. and Penalties,of Title I (Administrative),of City Code,allowing for the City's use
of the South Correctional Entity Regional Jail or another appropriate facility for
the imposition ofjail time. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BYTAYLOR,
COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
ORDINANCE#5742 An ordinance was read amending Subsection 6-28-6.C. of Chapter 28, Race
Attorney:Amend RMC 6-28- Attendance,of Title VI (Police Regulations),of City Code, updating the penalties
6.C. for violating a Stay Out of Areas of Racing("SOAR")Order to be consistent with
RMC 1-3-1. MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY TAYLOR, COUNCIL ADOPT THE
ORDINANCE AS READ. ROLL CALL: ALL AYES. CARRIED.
NEW BUSINE55 Councilmember Taylor reported that he recently attended the Local Progress
Council: Local Progress, convening in New York City. He remarked that Local Progress is a policy
Conference Attendance network of progressive-minded local elected officials from across the country,
united in the commitments of shared prosperity, equal justice under the law,
livable cities, and good government that serves the public's interests.
,
December 8. 2014 � Renton Citv Council Minutes � Pa�e 369
� Enjoy Clam Lights at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, nightly from 5 to 9
p.m.,through January 1, 2015.
� Start your new year off with a quick dip in the icy waters of Lak�
Washington at the Annual Polar Bear Dip, 11 a.m.on Thursday,January 1,
at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park. No registration in required and a life
guard will be on duty.
Mayor Law thanked Community Relations&Event Coordinator Sonja
Mejlaender for coordinating the Clam Lights event. He also thanked everyone
in the Community Services and Public Works Departments for their hard work
making City events enjoyable for all residents.
CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing. Mayor Law removed Consent Agenda Item 7.f.from consideration.
Council: 11/24/2014 Council Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/24/2014. Council concur.
Meeting Minutes
Council: 12/1/2014 Council Approval of Council meeting minutes of 12/1/2014. Council concur.
Meeting Minutes
Council: 12/2/2014 Special Approval of Special Meeting/Committee of the Whole minutes of 12/2/2014.
Meeting/Committee of the Council concur.
Whole Minutes
Court Case: DeLaTorre, CRT- Court case filed by Melinda De La Torre v. City of Renton, et al. Refer to C�
14-012 Attornev and Insurance Services.
CED: Medical Marijuana, Community and Economic Development Department recommended adoption
Moratorium Extension of a resolution extending the moratorium on accepting applications for
business licenses or permits for medical marijuana businesses. Council concur.
(See page 371 for resolution.)
u.,..�..,., o��.,�,. . rt,.,...,,,
�.,,.., �nirin +., c„if i..���.-,,.�
(W�'i n�+., .-„�E � .-„a .,,�+� o ,.*�,,, ..+ �� • .� + +• � i
� � � M M
�e��AC�AAA-pereEE�rTeraee. ''^��^�01 � .
MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY CORMAN, COUNCIL CONCUR TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA M�INUS ITEM 7.f. CARRIED.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS Council President Persson presented a Committee of the Whole report
Committee of the Whole recommending concurrence in the staff recommendation to adopt the
CED: Sunset Master Plan EIS Amended Sunset Area Planned Action, and recommended authorization of first
e� �p/dB � and second reading and adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action
Ordinance on 12/8/2014.
MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY PRINCE,COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION. CARRIED. {See page 372 for ordinance.)
Police: Car Thefts Council President Persson remarked that the Police Department presented an
anti-auto theft video to Council a few weeks ago. He noted that Detective
Onishi reported that eight cars were stolen between November 28 and
December 1, 2014. He stated that four of the eight cars were left running in the
cold weather. He reminded everyone to turn off their vehicles and lock them
up.
. � �, �
APPROVED Bl�
COMMI7TEE OF THE WHOLE, ��'�'�( (,�0�,,�NGIL
COMMITTEE REPORT
December 8,2014 . (�a�G IZ � / '
Sunset Area Planned Action Amendment
(Refe[red November 17,2014)
The Committee of the Whole concurs with the staff recommendation to adopt the Amended
Sunset Area Planned Action, and to recommends authorization of first and second reading
and adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance on December 8, 2014.
�_
Don Persson, Council President .
cc: Rocale Timmons,Senior Planner:
December 8. 2014 � Renton Citv Council Minutes � Pa�e 368
PUBLIC HEARING , This being the date set and proper notices having been posted and published in
CED:Sunset Master Plan EIS accordance with local and State laws, Mayor Law opened the public hearing to
consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action ordinance.
Senior Planner Rocale Timmons reported that the Sunset Area is approximately
269 acres and is located near the City center. She stated that it contains 3,000
duplexes on 240 acres, and is near major employment,shopping,transit, and
entertainment opportunities. She added that the vision for this area is to have
� it be a destination place where neighbors and businesses are engaged,the area
j�l is walkable and interconnected, and feels safe and secure.
� Ms.Timmons reported that planning efforts were initiated in 1999,and in 2007
� and 2008 those efforts were formalized into two task forces. In 2009 the
efforts of the task forces culminated in the Sunset Area Community Investment
Strategy. She explained that from this strategy an Environmental Impact
Statement(EIS) and Planned Action was created in 2010. She remarked that
since 2010 there have been several projects completed in the area, including
the construction of townhome projects,the beginning of the construction of
the new Highlands Library,and the completion of the Sunset Park Master Plan.
Ms.Timmons reported that staff recently conducted a re-evaluation of the EIS
that was completed in 2010. She explained that the new evaluation includes
approximately 90 more housing units focused on Sunset Boulevard, increased
building heights by ten feet, a larger park, and reclassification of the local
streets that serve the Sunset Area. She further explained that the amendments
to the 2010 EIS and Planned Action are not substantive changes from the
original record of decision. She added that the proposed changes require all
future multi-family buildings along Sunset Boulevard to comply with specific
design criteria related to building proportions and roof profiles.
Concluding, Ms.Timmons recommended that Council adopt the amended
Sunset Area Planned Action that reflects the proposed changes.
There being no public comment, it was MOVED BY PERSSON,SECONDED BY
PRINCE, COUNCIL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CARRIED. (See pages 369 and
371 for further information on this topic.)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington reviewed a written administrative
report summarizing the City's recent progress towards goals and work
programs adopted as part of its business plan for 2014 and beyond. Items
noted were:
� You're invited to attend the annual Specialized Recreation Drama Club
performance of"Frosty the Snowman" on Thursday, December 11, 7:30
p.m. This event at Carco Theatre, 1717 Maple Valley Highway, is free.
� On Sunday, December 14,enjoy the Renton Youth Symphony Orchestra
Winter Concert,3 p.m., at Carco Theatre. Tickets will be available at the
door; $10 for adults,$7 for seniors and$5 for students.
� Renton City Concert Band will perform their holiday concert on Sunday,
December 14, 2 p.m. at the Renton Ikea Performing Arts Center. Tickets
will be available at the door; $10 for adults,$7 for seniors and students.
�
' (Continued from Reverse Side- Page 2)
RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING
SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET
CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE
A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE
PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit
9 13
Name: Name:
Addresr. Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: Email:
Topic: Topic:
10 14
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: EmaiL•
Topic: Topic:
11 15
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: Email:
Topic: Topic:
12 16
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: Email:
Topic: Topic:
J(�/! 5�`� � l Q-!� � � � O-�I ,genda Item No.: , G�' �
�(. ,�
RENTON CITY COUNCIL MEETING •
PUBLIC HEARING/MEETING
SPEAKER SIGN-UP SHEET
(Page 1)
CITIZENS MUST PROVIDE NAME AND ADDRESS IN ORDER TO BE CONTACTED OR TO BE
A PARTY OF RECORD WHEN APPROPRIATE�
DATE: I`2 �i//�_ PLEASE PRINT 5 Minute Time Limit
�
1 5
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
EmaiL• Email:
Topic: Topic:
2 6
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
City: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: Email:
Topic: Topic:
3 �
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
�ity: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: EmaiL•
Topic: . Topic:
4 $
Name: Name:
Address: Address:
�ity: Zip Code: City: Zip Code:
Email: Email:
Topic: Topic:
(CONTINUED ON REVERSE SIDE)
' �"'" `"�''` 12/8/2014
� � �r�
ti+�� � ��
Public Hearing
Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner
City Council
December 8, 2014
----____
� City of -__
f .ti �
_,......
,� , ~ "� � �. .� �,.
. .
�� ���I �� �i �` �� •r}�:
�»,�w "*��„�w„www.,. �„�p '�,� -�.��
Community and Economic Development
�i�� ������ �r����������� C����i���
• Site Characteristics/Vision
, .
• Sunset Area History `����s ,� �'����
; � � �� �; '
• Sunset Area EIS � �
a
• Planned Action Ordinance � � � �. � ��' ���,��
t,
• Completed Projects ,,�,�, �' ��'��
. ' r' � ,�
• Revised Proposal �, � ����� ♦ ���
��.
• NEPA/SEPA Reevaluation �p � � -��w � ° ��
�� 4,,y
• Staff Recommendation ���.�� :�_ ������� �� ,�.,�
�c,.. �
• Next Steps
:�t� ��
`� A '
. � ,.
R E O 'r ''
,,�,� ,,, .,,, .,»„ ,,�,��,.
1
�'" '� 12/8/20 f 4
r. � t � � � �� r�►f��+�
a.
'���• ���� �acres near the City Center.
— Approximately 3000 duplex units
were built on 240 acres of land. �� ,�,�, .._w.
��
, �, �;�,� ; ��� �
— Sunset Terrace public housing- �; ���
t
100 units , ,� �� � ���
�
• Good access to hig�iw nd \� �""�
transit �ar� � �
, .
r ��r
• Close to major employment, �-_�
shopping, and entertainment �ti,
..` �'�
--op�pe�r�u n it i es °
. � ,
RENTON '+'i;.�..�o�
��� �
�:
� �
,a�\ a��e'e
� � s� �� < �a.
� x����� i�
�rv� �C�S�` � S� ' g '���
� E ;
"� '����'1#'1G�t�'t���H� ��".�
.��F�„�` � aa� �� � �
�� � � � ti����� � �
����-;r v� �` ��
� ����;,.
��
�
"�;
�
;
2
� � `�"'" 12/8/2014
� ��� � � �.
• Initial Planning Efforts (1999-2006) � �"�`��' �
• Highlands Task Fc��ces�l & II (2007-20(���
z ��� �� ��
���
• Sunset Area , t���` ��� lnvestment StrategY
� �
(2009) .�� � ��
��
• Sunset Area EI � ���� �� � � ° ���
� �.
• Planned Action Ordinance (2010�
• Completed Projects (2011-2014) �
�� ,;
;,
�.�q _��� C
��
_. ��' ` .�'�_. "a
RENTO ' fr�„ ;`�
,.,,.,� �,.< <��.t �� -1�c
�+����1c���ie�� �t���� ��
�:4�'+'-�r-��� � .
EIS Alternative 1 No action.
EIS Alternative 2 Moderate level of growth based on investment in mixed-
income housing and mixed uses in the Sunset Terrace
Subarea,targeted infrastructure and public services.
EIS Alternative 3 Highest level of growth based on investment in the Sunset
Terrace Subarea with a greater number of dwellings
developed in a mixed-income,mixed-use style,major public
investment in study area infrastructure and services.
EIS Preferred Neighborhood growth similar to and slightly less than
Alternative Alternative 3.
Reevaluation Growth the same as Alternative 3,with slightly more units
Alternative (approximately 90 units)redirected to the Sunset Terrace
Subarea with a larger park and with dwellings focused
more along SR 900.
. .
R E-� -�Ul
�.� , ��. ,,,�.�. . :�,,�,
3
'�' `� 12/8/20 t4
�� � �
�
� � � �
• Approximately 90 units wouid be � � : ���
redirected to the Sunset Terrace ,�„ S�..e, T�., ��„�, ,sa ,�.R.
Subarea Dwelling 2,506 479 2,339 266 2,506 554
• Building heights would be increased u""5
Population 5,789 1106 5,403 614 5,789 1,279
by no more than 10 feet. � ,��,�;� �� �:
�<�,
• Reductions in building setbacks '�'' �� m �'�
from the future Sunset Blvd �"����
improvement boundary
• The park has expanded to 3.2 acres �� �^ �� '�
from 0.5-2.5 acres � � " ` •:�. � ��' <'� ;�� '
• The reclassification of local streets � �� '����°� � � �'� ����` `�
serving the Sunset Area to allow a
_,`� o
more efficient roadway cross- � A =
ectio�— n \ ' -' �
I�E N T O N �''�'�•r�``
��i�'����"�1� ���1 ��
• No substantive change to the findings in the original Record of
Decision would occur as a result of the ree.valuation.
• Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and
identified in the FEIS, combined with additional consultation
and mitigation documented in the Record of Decision,
represent reasonable steps to reduce adverse environmental
effects.
• Additional mitigation includes the following:
— Future multi-family buildings on Sunset Blvd shall comply
with specific criteria related to building proportions and
roof lines. ��, ���
� g
� j ♦
R E N T O N 'ri,ti.,��i
4
� . `'"� � 12/8/2014
�
• Staff recommends the Council adopt the Amended
Sunset Area Planned Action to reflect proposed
changes
• This item has been referred to the Committee of the
Whole for review
• City Council action to be taken tonight:
— Hear Public Testimony
— Approve Committee Report
— Present ordinance for first reading and second reading
,ti�1 �i
� g i
• � �
R E� ',:f: �=
,,,,,,,,, ,��� �.�„ ����
����+�� �4.�r�� �1� ���D1�} � �������
• Study development proposals' environmental
impacts in advance and comprehensively
• Eliminate the need for additional
environmental review for future development
when consistent with the EIS assumptions and
mitigation measures
• Help facilitate private and public investment in
the study area
_��� r�
_� `A �
. � �
RENTON � �
.��� .�,.,f ��_, ��k.� r�',��>CJ�
5
� "'�` 12/8/201•4
� 1 � i � �
� � }
• Ordinance identified:
— Land uses (residential, �"" �'�
commercial, civic) ��;°�`
..,._ ��
— Development thresholds (e.g. � A _ " � ���� �
�� ,,. . , E �'�'�
dwellings, square feet, etc.) � ; ���� ��
�s��
— Building height (per code) � ��� '
� �
— Traffic trips and procedure ���� " � �����
o. `,
— Necessary mitigation �'`
� �w
�
� Tied to Alternative 3 and ,"�� �����
the Final EIS Preferred �������
�`����
Alternative ��'��;�
R E__ N—N �r.`.,`""
�� �"
• Approximately 15-acre site within the
P� �°:��� larger Sunset Area Community
���� .� Neighborhood.
�,�.4..�. ,�; ��
A ��,�� • Redevelopment of this area envisions
,� ���� Sunset Terrace as a mixed-use, mixed-
� �� �
'� � � `�'r��� income community anchored by:
���„ � ���° — An expanded Sunset Neighborhood Park centrally
� ';.�� �?� located within the site. �
\k
`� — A circular local road system that facilitates
�
� circulation around the park.
k
�'�'E — Compatibility with future multimodal SR 900
�� +�a.,
m � "�" ` improvements.
� ������
°�_ — Mixed-use development with residential and
�� `'� commercial uses including retail space and a
'*,,,��a�,� library.
� � — A Library situated at the corner of N
_.,� �
Sunset Blvd. � g �
�
R E N N 'ri��
�,�,: �� ,�,,.,�„ �
6
' � "'"'� 12/8/2014
� i �
1. Glennwood �
Townhomes
2. Meadowcrest EC �� �������
and Playgroun
3. Kirkland Townhomes
:��
4. Highiands Library �'�� �� ����
_ __ _____
_
5. Green Con � � ______
_.�___�,_
.� __...
.,�
.. , _.
,�
,,,, _ _
.�
_
� ���,
�
.
RE__ NT N � r
,,, �� ,�� .,,,,, ' , �L.
�� �� ��i+�r�� �c� �d�t��
6. Sunset Park Master Q
Plan
7. Sunset B Design � �� �� �
�_. � . _
���..,.....�......._.�.._..-.—.—,—._,..__.�-.�.... __ ....___.. y . ... �. .
w
� �
�
'� � - .._»_..._..
� .
, -`�� �`� . .. , � �-�
. '�1 . ; ' , . � ..
� �
� . .w.......
� � �� .. � "� ...
m¢
.. .,. :._.� r ' 1: . �
.-:+.. +�,—+ i�. � '
� ,_. .N .,. .
f _ _ ._ �.. ,. ... k. � . __
�- , �
�" .. ,,,,..a '°' .... (�
4..� .: .,. - M - �
_. -
/ •
RENTON . � �� � � �� � �'
, ,� „�, .,w,� - _` • ��� Q.
7
November 24,2014 �Renton Citv Council Minutes � Pa�e 352
Mr. Persson confirmed Ms. Palmer's clarification and noted that the meeting
could go past 8 p.m. He also clarified that Council policy allows 30 minutes per
candidate,which can be reduced by the Council President if there are more
than six candidates. Mr. Persson remarked that he would only reduce the time
if that was the wish of the full Council.
Responding to Councilmember Corman's inquiry, Mr. Persson stated that all
questions from the public or potential candidates regarding the process for
filling the vacancy should be directed to the City Clerk. He also noted that he
has made a personal decision not to meet with any potential candidates, but
has answered some general questions regarding the roles and responsibilities
of being a Councilmember.
Mr. Corman remarked that whoever is appointed will have to run for election to
complete the rest of the unexpired term in November 2015. He pointed out
that the election is only ten or eleven months off and campaigns typically take
that long. He remarked that he did not mean to discourage anyone from
, applying, but wanted to make sure people are aware that a campaign will have
to be run.
Discussion ensued regarding previous Council vacancy appointments,the timing
for swearing-in the newly appointed Councilmember,the number of remaining
Council meetings scheduled for 2014,the potential need for additional Special
Meetings,and whether the Mayor can cast a tie-breaking vote. Additional
discussion ensued regarding the appointee's need to run for election of the
,I �a l��� remaining term in November 2015, and then run for re-election in 2017.
CED:S�lnset Area Planned MOVED BY PRINCE,SECONDED BY PALMER, COUNCIL RE-SET THE PUBLIC
Action Ordinance, Re-Set HEARING DATE FOR THE SUNSET PLANNED ACTION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
Public Hearing 12/8/2014 TO DECEMBER 8, 2014. CARRIED.
Council: Quorum & Councilmember Prince requested that the administration prepare information
Attendance Policies regarding Council quorum and attendance policies for the upcoming 2015
Council Retreat.
Council:Taylor Travel Voucher Councilmember Taylor reported that he is a founding member of a national
Request organization called Local Progress. He stated that the organization's next
convening will occur in New York City. Mr.Taylor explained that Local Progress
has provided stipends to cover most of his travel costs. He requested that
Council approve his City travel voucher request in the amount of$947.
Mr.Taylor reported that the organization will be spending three days discussing
building progressive cities,fighting for economic justice and worker rights,
receiving training on winning police and criminal justice reform, building
affordable housing, and empowering and integrating immigrant residents. He
added that he sees this opportunity as a significant benefit to the City, as well
as well-leveraged use of City funds.
Council discussion ensued regarding the use of City funds for training and
educational opportunities outside of the Council-authorized regional
committees; whether or not Local Progress is a Political Action Committee and
the appropriateness of using City funds for Political Action Committees; and
other local elected officials paying their own way to the conference.
�wrw' 'or�`
CITY OF RENTON
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
RENTON CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Renton City Council has fixed the 8th day of
December, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing to be held in the
seventh floor Council Chambers of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, 98057,
to consider the following:
Adopt the amended Sunset Area Planned Action ordinance.
All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and present written or
oral comments regarding the proposal. Written comments submitted to the City C�erk
by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing will be entered into the public hearing record.
Renton City Hall is in compliance with the American Disabilities Act, and interpretive
services for the hearing impaired will be provided upon prior notice. Call (425) 430-
6510 for additional information.
�
ason Set
Deputy City Clerk
Published: Renton Reporter
November 28, 2014
Account No. 50640
, �
w
'� November 17, 2014 �,,,.,r Renton Citv Councii Minutes '"�"� Pa�e 338
SPECIAL PRESENTATION Matthew Shepherd, representing the Municipal Arts Commission and
Renton Report's FilmFrenzy reelRenton, remarked that the film industry has really exploded in Renton over
People's Choice Award the past year. He explained the mission of reelRenton, and noted that seven
• film-related events were held in the City in 2014. Mr.Shepherd introduced
Brian Beckley, Editor for the Renton Reporter.
Mr. Beckley announced that this year's winner of the Renton Reporter People's
Choice Curvee Award are the Film Vandals for their film "Rewriting Renton." He
added that the film crew also won "Best Use of Renton" award, and third place .
overall in the open division. He presented the award to Eric Showacy.
Mr.Showacy expressed appreciation for the award. He noted that the Film
Vandals won both the People's Choice award and the "Best Use of Renton"
award two years in a row. He boasted that they will be back to win again next
yea r.
AUDIENCE COMMENT Howard McOmber(Renton) expressed his condolences to the Briere family and
Citizen Comment: McOmber— the City. He remarked that he had worked with Councilmember Briere on the
Harambee Cold Weather second Highlands Task Force. He stated that Ms. Briere worked very hard to
Shelter make Renton a better place to live and work. Additionally, Mr. McOmber
thanked City officials for opening the Harambee Cold Weather Shelter during
the recent snap of cold weather.
CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows
the listing.
Council: Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 11/3/2014. Council concur.
10/27/2014
Court Case:Smith, CRT-14-010 Court case filed by leffrey R. McKee vs.the City of Renton, et al. Refer to C�
Attornev and Insurance Services.
Budget: 2014 Year-end Administrative Services Department recommended approval of the 2014 year-
Amendments end 2013/2014 Biennial Budget amendments, increasing appropriations by
$6,375,319 with the total amended budget to be$609,250,946 for the
biennium. Refer to Finance Committee.
Attorney:Amend RMC 1-3-1.6, City Attorney Department recommended amending RMC 1-3-1.8, Remedies
Remedies and Penalties and Penalties,to allow the City's use of South Correctional Entity Regional lail
(SCORE)or another appropriate facility for the imposition of jail time. Refer to
Public Safetv Committee.
Attorney:Amend RMC 6-28- City Attorney Department recommended amending RMC 6-28-6.C, Race
6.C., Race Attendance Attendance, by updating penalties for violation of Stay Out of Areas of Racing
(SOAR)orders to be consistent with RMC 1-3-1. Refer to Public Safetv
Committee.
Attorney: Public Safety City Attorney Department recommended adoption of the resolutions
Emergency Radio Network, authorizing the implementation and operator interlocal agreements for the
Interlocal Agreement Public Safety Emergency Radio Network(PSERN). Council concur. (See page
339 for resolutions.)
CED:Sunset Planned Action Community and Economic Development Department recommended a public
Ordinance Amendment hearing be set on 12/1/2014 to consider adopting the amended Sunset Planned
�� ���a��/ Action ordinance. Refer to Committee of the Whole:set public hearing.
��J�
�
�
, � �rr
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
C�� g .
Subject/Title: Meeting:
Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Ordinance REGULAR COUNCIL- 17 Nov 2014
Amendment
Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board:
1. Issue Paper Community and Economic Development
2. NEPA Reevaluation and SEPA Addendum
Analysis
3. Parking Analysis
4. Transportation Analysis Staff Contact:
5. Noise Analysis Rocale Timmons,x7219
6. Master Site Plan
7. Draft Planned Action Ordinance
Recommended Action:
Refer to Committee of the Whole and set Public
Hearing for December 1, 2014
Fiscal Impact:
Expenditure Required: $ 0 Transfer Amendment: $ p
Amount Budgeted: $ 0 Revenue Generated: $ p
Total Project Budget: $ 0 City Share Total Project: $ p
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
In May 2011, the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)for redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area.The NEPA/SEPA Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011. The
number of total dwellings currently under consideration exceeds the number of dwellings studied in the
FEIS and considered in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. Further, building heights would be
increased beyond City maximums for the applicable zone, which would require a discretionary
conditional use permit. Setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less
than for the FEIS Preferred Alternative. Last, the City is considering reclassifying some local streets
serving the Sunset Area to allow a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating
circulation.The City of Renton is proposing to amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the
Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA.An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any change
to impacts associated with the revised master site plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Set public hearing on December 1, 2014 to consider adopting the amended Sunset Area Planned Action,
and authorize preparation of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance for first and second
reading and adoption on December 8, 2014.
.'7
C
� � �
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY p �'.�f�O� ;��
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT �
ISSUE PAPER
DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: Don Persson, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Denis Law, Mayor
FROM: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator
STAFF CONTACT: Rocale Timmons, Senior Planner x 7219
SUBJECT: Sunset Redevelopment Planned Action Amendments
ISSUE:
Should the City adopt the Sunset Area Planned Action Amendments?
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the amended Sunset Area Planned Action and authorize preparation of the
amended Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance for first and second reading.
BACKGROUND SUMMARY:
In May 2007,Council adopted land use and zoning changes for the Sunset Area
consistent with the work of the Highland Citizen's Taskforce on Land Use and Zoning.
Building upon this work the Highlands Phase II Task Force recommended a series of
community and City actions to revitalize this neighborhood. After these
recommendations were adopted by Council in 2009,the City commissioned consultants
to develop the Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy to focus on how the City
could best leverage public investments. One of the recommendations of the
Community Investment Strategy was to complete a Planned Action and Environmental
Impact Statement.
In May 2011,the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) and adopted a Planned Action
Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)for
redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area.The NEPA/SEPA Final Environmental Impact
Statement(FEIS) supporting both milestones was issued on April 1,2011.The Planned
Action included the redevelopment of Sunset Terrace and adjacent properties with
mixed-income, mixed-use residential and commercial space, and public amenities.
x
f � �
November 17,2014
Page 2 of 3
Since 2011, the redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area has evolved. The number of
total dwellings currently under consideration exceeds the number of dwellings studied
in the FEIS and considered in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. Further, building
heights would be increased beyond City maximums for the applicable zone, which
would require a discretionary conditional use permit.Setbacks of buildings from the
future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less than the FEIS Preferred Alternative.
Last,the City is considering reclassifying some local streets serving the Sunset Area to
allow a more efficient roadway cross-section while still facilitating circulation.
It is expected that,with the Sunset Terrace property and associated properties owned
or purchased by RHA or by private developers (e.g. Colpitts Development Company,
LLC), up to 554 additional new units could be constructed in the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea;and there would be up to 722 total units on the Sunset
Terrace property including nearby land swap/housing replacement sites. Public
amenities would be integrated with the development and could include a community
gathering space; civic facilities;a new park/open space; retail shopping and commercial
space;and green infrastructure. As a result of enlarging the park, some buildings would
develop at a greater height and density.
The City, RHA,and Colpitts have prepared a revised Master Site Plan including a new
Conceptual Plan to be developed and approved pursuant to the Renton Municipal Code
(RMC)Title IV(LUA14-001475).This Master Site Plan would facilitate the preparation of
phased detailed Site Plans over time and allow the City to determine consistency with
applicable regulations. The Public Hearing for the Master Site Plan before the City's
Hearing Examiner has been tentatively scheduled for December 16, 2014 at 11:00 am.
The changes to the development proposal to add more units and height and to address
street standards also require a NEPA Re-evaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US
Department of Housing and Urban evel opment's (HU' s) NEPA regulations,
demonstrating that the original conclusions of the FEIS remain valid.
SEPA also provides a process, using an Addendum to the prior FEIS where new
information or analysis does not substantially change prior conclusions about impacts
(WAC 197-11-706).
An Addendum to the Final EIS has been prepared to evaluate any changes to impacts
associated with the revised Master Site Plan (Attachment A-D). The re-evaluation,after
considering the effects of the revised Master Site Plan and existing and supplemental
environmental documentation, concludes that no substantive change to the findings in
the Record of Decision would occur.The Sunset Area Community Planned Action
NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately examines the impacts of the overall project, and the
proposed changes in the Master Site Plan would not result in modification to those
conclusions.
�
� � �
November 17,2014
Page 3 of 3
The Re-evaluation and Addendum would result in minor revisions of the ROD and
Planned Action Ordinance to reflect the revised Master Site Plan. Staff is proposing to
amend its Planned Action Ordinance applicable to the Sunset Area pursuant to SEPA.
CONCLUSION:
Adoption of the amended Sunset Area Planned Action ordinance will continue to
implement the recommendations of the Sunset Community Investment Strategy.
Attachment
cc:
Jay Covington,CAO
Gregg Zimmerman,Public Works Administrator
Terry Higashiyama,Community Services Administrator
Mark Peterson,Fire Chief
T
� � �
REEVALUATION / ADDENDUM
Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment � September 2014
Prepared By:BERK Consulting in associotion with CH2MHilI,Mithun, and Weinman Consulting LLC
1.0 Need for Reevaluation......................................................................................................................2
2.0 Sunset Area Alternatives..................................................................................................................3
2.1 Study Area ....................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Land Use Proposals.......................................................................................................................7
2.3 Building Height, Density,Parking and Other Standards.............................................................10
2.4 Facility and Infrastructure Proposals..........................................................................................12
2.5 Impervious Area..........................................................................................................................15
2.6 Master Plan and Other Discretionary Applications....................................................................17
2.7 Phasing........................................................................................................................................19
3.0 Environmental Analysis..................................................................................................................19
3.1 Land Use.....................................................................................................................................19
3.2 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................20
3.3 Transportation............................................................................................................................24
3.4 Noise...........................................................................................................................................25
3.5 Parks and Recreation..................................................................................................................25
3.6 Public Services............................................................................................................................26
3.7 Utilities........................................................................................................................................27
3.8 Other FEIS Topics........................................................................................................................27
4.0 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................27
September 2014 1
<
'�` � r
REf��t�i�SUl�SET CGIV(�UhETY,"REF�
REEVALUKTIC�ht A'VD�DdE�`DU�`��
�.t� �`i��� ��J� IE�Ea��tr�.���r��i�[�
In May 2011,the City of Renton completed a Record of Decision (ROD) in accordance with the National
Environmentai Policy Act (NEPA), and adopted a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace area. The NEPA/SEPA Final
Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)1 supporting both milestones was issued April 1,2011.
The ROD and Planned Action established a range of growth and associated facility and infrastructure
investments (e.g. park, library, "green streets," etc.) for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action
Study Area, for the neighborhood as a whole and for the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment, a site then
fully owned by the Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Since May 2011, redevelopment efforts have
continued, including the Demolition and Disposition permit for a Mixed Use Library redevelopment on a
portion of the property and a purchase and sale agreement with a private developer. This has been
followed by a Demolition and Disposition permit for the balance of the Sunset Terrace property allowing
for both market rate and affordable dwellings. RHA has developed plans or has constructed units in the
Sunset Area that could serve as replacement units for Sunset Terrace when redeveloped.There would
be no net loss of affordable units.
The number of total dwellings currently under consideration exceeds the number of dwellings studied in
the FEIS and considered in the ROD and Planned Action Ordinance. Further, building heights would be
increased beyond City maximums for the applicable zone, which would require a discretionary
conditional use permit. Setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less
than for the FEIS Preferred Alternative. Last, the City is considering reclassifying some local streets
serving the Sunset Area to allow a more efFicient roadway cross-section while still facilitating circulation.
As a result of these potential changes, the City is preparing a revised Master Plan including a new
Conceptual Plan to be developed and approved under the Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Title IV. This
Master Plan would facilitate the preparation of phased detailed Site Plans over time and allow the City
to determine consistency with applicable regulations.This will also provide more certainty for members
of the public and private developers.
The changes to the development proposal to add more units and height and to address street standards
also require a NEPA Reevaluation, pursuant to Section 58.47 of US Department of Housing and Urban
Development's(HUD's) NEPA regulations,demonstrating that the original conclusions of the FEIS remain
valid.
SEPA also provides a process, using an Addendum to the prior FEIS where new information or analysis
does not substantially change prior conclusions about impacts (WAC 197-11-706). �
The purpose of this document is to provide analysis that meetr the requirements of both a NEPA
Reevaluation and a SEPA Addendum and that demonstrates the FEIS original conclusions are valid. This
analysis would also provide the basis for ROD or Planned Action Ordinance amendments, if any. This
Reevaluation and Addendum document is structured as follows:
1 CH2MHill and ICF International.2011.Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impad Statement.
Final.April.(ICF 00593.10.)Bellevue and Seattle,WA.Prepared for City of Renton and the Renton Housing Authority,Renton,
WA.
September 2014 2
�
� �i; �
RENTQhE St1M1ESET CC�R�Ml�taiTY�.RcA
REEVALUATIGN/.lND kddENDUF�+[
1. Introduction
2. Sunset Area Alternatives
3. Environmental Analysis
4. Conclusions
��� ���°��� r���� ������`�r'�t����
�`.�. :r�[���F`� �5���
The primary study area consists of the original Sunset Terrace Public Housing Boundary (approximately
73 parcel acres) plus several sites that are planned (or were constructed) for housing redevelopment
either on Master Plan sites or on housing replacement sites or "swap sites" (approximately 6.8 parcel
acres).
Exhibit 1 shows active Sunset Area Revitalization Projects.Sites A through O and X are a primary focus of
this Reevaluation and Addendum; of these, sites D, E, and G through O are included in a Master Plan
Application.
All sites on Exhibit 1 were evaluated in the EIS for the Sunset Area Community Planned Action Area
shown in Exhibit 2. Additionally all of the Master Plan Sites were considered in the Potential Sunset
Redevelopment Study Area (shaded in purple)shown in Exhibit 3.
September 2014 3
t
�► +�' ,
REtvTOri[SUNSET CG(VIMUh[TY�RE.4
REEVALU�TION Ik(�!D L:uGE��UF44
Exhibit 1. Revitalization Projects
---SUNSET T.ERRACE` REDEVEL�PMENT }�, `;
SUNSET AREA COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PRO.JECTS
�:, ,.r
�
- � � ---- --_--_ - - _
------------; -
x __ ,_ ... .--
__- �._:� : � _ __
-_- '` ! _ — � 1 �i
�• �
. �: E..__ _'____ ^e _ _.�: ' 1'�;�Cmek .- � 1�,
�-___ I - � -' . �� , ;
S . _'J- � - � . . .
��
0 25�'� �. 500 - 2 �s _ _.,�I . i
,
I- P ._: _
�C�F�N , .-_ ___....__.�,_,_�.
- t3.300 i. � " .�: . . _�...___ -- - --
j�`c
_ _ � - -ax.�:hfi._cY' .
r:�,.. - I � �..,��4 �
. . . . 1 _ �' '� �� �� - "__ __ �
l - a� �
�� 3 � t
— -_ i
,'\ x �:� ,� � •� � -�>..�1 �
--- -- - -1' -- *�;„ � f - --
.. r-_`.-- ' -_ - �:;..�'� ;� . . - .
,. � I �� -. S j _ . __-_. .
. ;_�_—_._— -._ �. .- �x��z� .-;",:'_• , . _-__'-_. _-__- -
. � -_ .� �•. - _-
... . -- - -. -- % � . I
� � ��� - __- ..�. j� .i
� -
. �. � - - -_ .. � ' .
.. '.. -- . . _`.'. . �
� '_i.'. v- ..__�- ' .. .. i_".,_, _" ____.
-_ _ .'i _ .. -- � � - .
; � _
I ..--..r�_..` . .' .- —_.._.� . .
, . _ �.. . � � --- � -
� "$":- _ X=-Librery 5'Re(2013)' _ �
: � �
, � -,
--- � ._ �_ --- --- `�.— __ �--- -
- _ _, �z. _�_ -
� -' - -, - ,� - -- _ -- - - - --
^r�'} �.. �— -- _- _I c
_ � � _
1 - �� -�= . ___ �� --� - --- LL '
- - �
� c --
, . . _� ..., - . :, , ..
�� w , _ '=, I
�- - .
�
.
�
. .
— _ , , -
,
_, _ T '. y , . H . .�_ .. . ___.
I � . t�-�� L� -ve...i?.. E E. �Y
. __ � ��` -�� { ; YJ `.
��""yy i Sa r R �ru.N��,r�,��m�
� � ���:�"' s �T�� . '�� a�s r se ha�Ro1����nEAflmvtleNaea9
� � d� '7r«� � y��� -'� . � G�: .»T ..
�•'"•`�
�2 I..:u...,
_-'"- , �����,5-."��.: __".j ' ..mc
, e �
. ._ . .G�.,«'r y •...d _ . .; , �•�Lmc•u_�..t.^�.a
—._ � _ � c i - �
- � �o.:,�.e,-F..,�.,�,rt�.,:--
>H.._. ' � __ }- . . . �� �F ..T��T �h-.��
� a..- � __ _ ___ . . .� ���t��Ia� . -:O:;.uT.-rt:
. �.. ._ _— '. I ' Cuie�Sacakma:PueecmaPma�aPmycLL: '
�---_._ --_� '. . -- _—"— .. i"`� :.M lmaa.kr.s=+nitl.:�ae'lset.
�, �1:.^_ � i .. _
_ I'..._. '. __ ._ `..%' ��.1-G'�:F. ��41.�e'Ju➢
_ I:_ _ -_ � '--' �` � J.LcBPCF-_.C±inl[-
- �i- . �. � ' , `�61:.FMUP.Hif1�nl..Il[�IxY
' Nighla+Y=P�tr � �� - �
- ��-� ais Ne+Qhd�rnao� .:�i"^ . �..t-?rnn>:�w e�.nF.ca.e
. '_ " { � L0�2er � -. .� . t"' _.,.ti�'...��
- � � 1 . . _a _ . r^- :r ».�:���,a�r.a .�,
1 _ . .I ___ -� � ,, � c::0.k;1.M<�.,�,1�Atvm,5^PNMneI'
�� '�_,_ �'-... . �._:I__.-.- . � HMY-SYrettAeePWI'r.McTcU
_ . . ` __-- -__ .I _..I. . _- , . ...F.WiGI':liGEsM:eartnnCaik�
l -
. _._ -_ - " _ __ , _4umv':�.re�i �ReoWp�
R
. . . , _.__._" .-'—.___ - !�SmtiA�PudiPm}ru
. -.- I __ .. -� �j�r..Hu�nFa.Nelre'+=�eetiFiiM]ssft>mw:Yn4W�.,IC?in�-G
�� G,mmtmii7'�tEconomicDevebpmer4 �. ._- . - � . . ., C_:�+T�.""n�.�e.�o:wo..oF.am�mc�s��
� - - . �� '� . . ��. � na.asu,x..,�oqAmwMOn.erm�wry
---^`��r_�_�� .. . ' , . '' L ��nKr..,ea�.Y_,ss.�eu,uom;o..w�z.,c�
September 2014 4
1
. Ob5o9.3U/GIS�Re:I�eR 1d711/MIO
" e .� I �-' `�� �� '�s � � � �; � ,��I�� �P�'
a� o� �� �G� �i S�fTe.,,,��., ABERDEEN AVE NE I� r ...��Ye��W .� "'i : tn �-� .
��'�. �1 � m�. r �LM;d���C�or � � ��'C� � � s f ! .. �. Q
1 �.� x 8m.}e �,�'. '�i v . �NE 'L �:.. t��� � � � .�.:� � o' c � .z n � s �
� ���.� 'r S� .' ��� �,�t•,4�^ ,�O^ _.� �r� ...��- � d ' � � q � � �.
' � � N
'
����� �� '�,�. R"T � � �c �,.+��, �. '� � aa � � Z � �� � �. a �
2> � � n
� ?� a�� ;:�� .: m��c�. � � oA ��e� `..���� �� � a.
� �
—/ �
5 � � ' '�' �� �� ,- x�:. , � �-h CAM 5�'qVf/Jf � . �� � ao � v,
r;��r�Mq��e� ��s;� ��i�°� ���6�,����ir� � , � <
' ' .+,�bAY OhTq�yq3� �l�i�`r� ��,; ��: . �P � � � •$ � � �
�- � ,�.�79�����I��vw�k�ao �' kj:. �� �'�� ... u�� �I a Z'� Z��DA��!
��' � � � �������` �.u�.�.l� �.��� m'� � �■ � .
y , _
� �'���A4J � �� �� '� r ��q u.,, � e .
' �.��i�i��l�I k!�=� �.,�`i������ � �� �
,'��J �p�"`�,��,* } . EDMONOS AVE NE � -�� ��'� ..
,P'� Z�4� y� ��� � �,�cP� �' � :s � � � � � m :2 �� � �y m
����,�y�� � , �, g�a,s� q,t r a � � � � � �� �
�i' �i- �nd+F. f �6 f :S� � a«f^y ` � � �� a pg � �� �� '" r�'�li�� �
"��"�`v�. i�aA ti '' a�'�+'� ,��'� '�r �4:�,:;v � ` `'.' f� ' ` ���� ����� � �
i� ��":�� � �;FERNDAIErCiRNE �� R 3 �c,:V��v .GLENWppprAVE�a a� .Zu �' i�'�' ,.,7 �� `� ��
���lp1 Ir f' �. IA" tF� � � }.�i# � � � s g s NE� a x:+ ,a� �� N
�"� '�OLENWOOD�AVENE�f �'�' � "' � �
� � 1�s ,���aa,� �{�7'°�� ��. � .�v� �k�fi ��-��< �
� � k^ �: � �� � �
r'' . `.� F x � "� �+ sG,y`���� �`' � �: re u t� . �� tl x3 N � 3
v E Y t � r� � 2 � •�;��,� s�� 1�
� HARRINGTONri4VEiNE �"+�+ '�.?�sF��y ` 1 ^ a'." � � : � �y 3N+3��i ;�
✓� ■ �',: 'Y�y T 5` i�..'. Y $ t� Z � ' t4 a �'b Y +�� �"��V � �EY T /��
C � M "-� Y���/� ��.. �{'� i �". � y �,.. 'M y�.v�� N •Y
� Vf ,y� �l ,. }s,�!` .«; F
YA p y �+
N w �� ��l� !� ��{,�17iI�S.. r?�,,y�, �,J,�T e° Y t � m,t� i �� � �i s�ro.�ar i' "A � {r O.
N � ���p` �a;i� INUE�XrC�NE� �.� �'� �� �'�'N �� ,� � �'^�ltNDEX AVE NE ;�, r a's-r.� ium��' - ¢ �,:� �, '"�,. n
� °
� � 3N d�3.�- .����, �' c��`�r�F.�., ,:�. � y � �V��*�Z"�� ��'is �.p ��;�'"'A K`E x"4���' }��€c X��$'�`4 i y� �`�`"` �'4��.- ��95'- �
� � `��. ; S`N:. � � /EFF.ERSON}AVE�NE �� 's'� `�: �` u w��. E r �...
� �.��` _.�wey^ S rINDEX AVE NE€ ;r' + d'� �x,� a � t ,r �r ,� k �'' t+ �44'^� 'd�'. :3
�� �,�;P� �`�° � � �i 1 j � � ���1�. �d � �7 �y�y «� �, �1,� 4' �i�ar�f' � �
3 � .� ��+ + a�S oe n�#� `� s � � . ,„�
c y e_�y� ��� �+A �V�� ��� '4 � p�F p � F � �T��i17111Mff1�* sr'k� t�� G°�,+ �ra, y���� '6 �
� �'�i��� " �q
� �' ,� � u'S��IIR� a �, a my � � l�KIRKLANDyAVENf ��"�,� r, fD
r ' °-1 t� rn� �c�`s x� 'S.,�" 0!
'7 3N 3AtlUNtl1HtlIN "'�-,^— .; � �z " �;,-` [¢ �-�� �,��`'��� � �y�����
�� � KlRKUJ`NDAVENE ,
d �r������.���R�s� q�y� I `� - i � k =,� �- �*� s � � s�,�
� �� y17���wi9���Mi� �'i��P'(� � '' � •' d k ° ����� ���bt� fi�' S � � „TJ
Q �l�lf.� ,R��� ,' ; a ,�t xz� t�s s�'�r'�KlRKL4NDIPL�NE'�.. m
fD `�"LYNNWOOD�AVEINE � � � s*� ° � � � "�''—
ui !�$��'�P3AI� "� � ra�U ac�8�"+ 1�,� i: m Q �
�` 'a. ' ���' LYNNWOODAVEINE � t � :.�� �� ��'" $J m
a' ; +�a������������I����a�� b� raa .._ .t , u�}��,���� e� z
�.� ...�...�,......�� � � r . MOfVRO��AVE�IVE " � .�._.:�.,...,�.: ,n.��' � .,.: .�,.'r� ^r,�x:�i'e�c�°P�'� � C.
� � z��r7F+�'�a�s� ��� d�'� �y, �°��iu�� T J, �Il�� *��N�Yd �r��i��'TI�E " �aa� T.�I� � �
z o �Fr�t.sce._��l�� � � ��i� �t s ��Z��m �t,uMONROE�AVE;NE m��"�'� m
�m v� 9� � �� " ���I�r�+�� �S C!� � IF ���� , �� ��/s�r�a�� O -i
r r = y,a •°,a �p,�,7 �n�' 4ay ` 7� t+ Z n
N � � T�.';�1FYa �IS�,M -�Ii�YW� ���i�=��b � � 2 * � Z
'"g°� ��„�ir� � �'°°�96"�I l��r+'�i�is� R G� �r [s�i� �kt�i N � �
��'� �� � �t ����� �� '' �.
m �N �r� _ � aYMPIA`AVE3NE . ' �' p ,�
� v .. ��"���S�f�t��'�i��A ,tia �a d�a1e a„r � :� 6a � f�i r'7 . ���� '� � , � � J? �
4 �
G �
m
�
� p A
� m
� A
c
�+ �° ,
REf`T�?N SU1�5ET C�fViMIENITY AREA
REElrALUATIQN A�JD,4GDEf�DUM
Exhibit 3. Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and Swap Sites
_ �s
QLandSwap/HousingReplacemerRStes �NE2157•ST�` -
� �,'�.City Limits STcSf . � .
� � � NE 2dSf'-
ShidyAre3 ���'� _2
____Po2entialSunset TM�� • F,'ti d
-Tertace Redevelopmc�rrc �"��� �Z .
g
� * Y
� �$T.. " � ��, W Y.
`�' ' * 12
isj,.. � '�''F '�.} .. .
. 0 i00 7 AOD �� I -Q �
.�Z ��I`� .2 � NE:1TfHlPt
� � eet �, .tni�.A. ��� y :
Qt�' � - �
Q N, , . . y. - . .- � ,.. ..
S '
¢ � 2. -� F�; ,�6(a� . �Y� . � .NE�1FfH�5T
_ '"' S�<<-J <'�Z -�.. - � -.. . ..,... '�NEFiSTH!S7 " ..
a m+, ui
�Q - W
Z f � Z
�� :. - >�. �NEFISTH PL,.
:� ">
O '�!; W
� q� §a �� �p ..�� �11tE36TM ST- -� W ,, -
..F+c, . . � � --T NE34TH Sf ���'. 2� W ��Q�
'y , � ._ . ?i,:. ,', . ...�J W;.. r§� -n`�'
�,�. �� NE33TH!PL . 1'. _- � i^ _ . �, -�0
� . :.a. �' �; ,.. �E,��� .
' � � � �� , �` . -
z
"�Z_
�. �.� . NE 13TH n �,: .: ;' ,' .
.���
. . m :,. . _ '�..
�2� �A5 :�.__. ���. ,.,�:.: � . � , -. _ ._
. j. �- ,�.. � � NER32TH�5T W ...�. � _ "
.
':.-�. ¢ � _ €.� _. ,�.:' L � : .
Q �' '> : y` a ;} �
� V � ��Q ^�_ �. O .,.�:
'_
Z"'� apR � . ,,..O �, O ¢.. NE.I27H�P,L � '�1:.�
> Nf�PPR� _ �:� ��' �� ;��3 . ...
� _ ,�_.
W _ �j:��+ R ��W �_. ��,��2�� J�y� }. : i � NEi117H 57�.
�'. �. �� J�k- y „e 2,; - "' ,.�
W . ..r-� <, y �-.�i y,a_ " j�� _ NE lOTHjP.L��. , .
°°' - �..,,,� ia-S_ .o,�'� � u+-'
Q. 2
� � �� � � � �� .
�; µ "7 z� a �,.'�s %*»�z��`'�.^.4'F.i �, ..- -;g �x �� .
� N�E1v��'� � ♦"�s- ^�,�I �Ty- ,�c c�.
s�. c�J�,' --� �, at �a
� 2�1ii i I 'Q� .�L �. .-vj� x he�
NE 1DTH Sf, o ��� ' � �,p' '�` �i ��u ;��`��
=��F'�li����'� O'� yi�l Z �Sa7r
tti �-�, �� W Z L,,;. ' i Q�NE:lOTH!5T _
j��. �NE:97H�P.L . �.O- �� -. ._� ; ��T �a �°; + -. � �p r/�CiII��
Q„ ,^. > 4� � . q�
h ��. . '� � ,, : W9�0 r/'� . '�rX �...�d _ ...p�filE;JTH ST
��
'i0 +S !!" ��+ O' 4���i��
, � � ,Nf�97M�5T ��..� W �' 'Z!�3 .� � � "M. Z � S .. Z� .� �
•� -:- F� 2��j. ¢ 2 .� r^�, ` -Z
�._ .8y ' ��.?'wle'3� � 'W "�y�'� �'' .� J
. NE!8THP1 �''� '� � l7 .. . �f
� ... a:�� .� -�"Z'# �3 _
' � � W .,
�. i ' ,.-.z �� > ��_Z . .-
�.NE��S7`" +��,� o� s�.�'BZHv+ ..� Ne�ar►i;sr
� � _ ;,.;.
�___ �;o� °' .'+.�''�R nm,x„ N.
.. �� .i��t'�1f0 .. • �k_•.z
� �� Z yZ ' .. X ,
r .�c^� gTNS���•
� kE�!P,L NE'� •x� N� ; O —�FIEH7H 5T
�
� �H � �Z �s�. `y �
� �'�61R ' � � �
�M T` �
� � � � Z `�
o �!� � � 4• �m �
r
� Source:Gty d lien[on;�Grg Courty - ��_ �s,NE�PL
�, �rr�� _ ��..
.�^A� Attachmeni A
'�� Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and tand S�rdp/Repfacement Housing Sites
Sunset Area Community Planned Adion DraFt NEPAjSEPA EIS
m�+cnF�o���:e:u
September 2014 6
r
1 'i�' �
ftt"RETp tv SU Ih5 ET CO(k1 i�/I lf h(TY AREA
REEV�,LUATf�N AND�QQEM1;DL'�
2.�. ��[°_� f��� �["��?�1����
In total, 722 dwelling units are proposed on sites A through O and X. About 544 of these units are
proposed on Master Plan sites D, E, and G through O. See Exhibit 4 for a summary and Exhibit 6 for a
detailed breakdown by site.Additionally,there is a range of commercial space with a low end of 19,500
consistent with more recent planning efforts,and an upper range established in the FEIS of 59,000.
Exhibit 4.Summary of Total Units Proposed for Study in Reevaluation
rotal
Land Area Dwelling Commercial
Location (aaes) Units Square Feet
Master Plan Sites
Master Plan Sites:Sunset Terrace Redev.A-C,Sunset Terrace Apts,Sunset Park 5.06 544 4,500-39,500
Townhomes E and W(Sites D,E,and H to J)
Library(Site K) 15,000
Sunset Park and Regional Stormwater Facility(Sites L and M) 3.Z _
NE 10th and Sunset Lane Loop(Site N and O) 1.61 -
Other Sunset Terrece Study Area Sites:Edmonds-Glenwood(Sites A and C) 235 120
Swap Sites:Kirkland Avenue(B),Sunset Court(F),Library Site for Future 3.06 58
Surplus(X)
Total 15.28 722 19,500-59,000
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,Mlthun,BERK 2014
Two alternatives were addressed in the NEPA Record of Decision (ROD) and the Planned Action
Ordinance as selected alternatives: Alternative 3 and a Preferred Alternative. See Exhibit 5. These
alternatives represented the higher growth (evels studied in the EIS. The mitigation documents in the
ROD and Planned Action Ordinance were based on the range of growth of the two Selected Sunset Area
Alternatives.
Exhibit 5. Comparison of Net Growth in Sunset Terrace and Neighborhood Alternatives
Net New Growth
Alternative 3 Preferred Alternative Reevaluation Alternative
Neighbor- Sunset - Neighbor- Sunset Neighbor- Sunset
Dwelling Units/Jobs hood Terrace hood Terrace hood Terrace
Dwelling units 2,506 479 2,339 `266a 2,506 5546
Population 5,789 i,106 5,403 614' S,789 1,279
Employment SF 1,310,113 59,000 ' 1,247,444- 38,100 1,310,113 19,500-
1,259,944 59,000
Jobs 3,330 182 3,154-3,192 i17 3,330 ' 60-182
a Does not include approximately 90-100 units to be developed on land swap/housing replacement sites.
b Similar to the FEIS,the Sunset Terrace study area Master Plan sites D,E,G to J and L to 0,plus sites A and C.
Source:FEIS 2011,BERK 2014
The purpose of identifying two " elected Sunset Area Alternatives" was to define a range of acceptable
growth and designs considering the conceptual nature of the Sunset Terrace redevelopment plans as
well as the 20-year time horizon of the broader neighborhood planned action. The Preferred Alternative
was similar to Alternative 3 with slightly lower growth and a reconfiguration of park space and road
network. The two alternatives were similar in terms of potential beneficial and adverse impacts and
required mitigation measures.
Since the original FEIS analysis, additional site planning has occurred and some changes in units are
proposed (^' 90 more units than Alternative 3 in the Sunset Terrace area; neighborhood totals remain
the same).See Exhibit 7 for the Master Plan Proposals.The City is also proposing a larger park than was
considered under either of the selected alternatives, and commensurately some buildings have
increased in height or numbers of units. Some streets are proposed for reclassification to achieve the
circulation proposals and "green streets" in the EIS. Setbacks of buildings from the future SR 900
improvement boundaries are less than for the Preferred Alternative. As the analysis in this document
September 2014 7
<
� +� ,
EtEtt i O�SU�!SET�Of�rIV E.".i�ETY,�RE�
REEVkLUATION`.�D:.�DEt�DJ€.�i
shows, no substantive changes in conclusions or required mitigation are needed as a result of the
revised alternative,which is termed the"Reevaluation Alternative".
September 2014 8
�
RENTON SUNSET CQMMUNITY AREA �
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 6.Study Area and Master Site Plan Properties—Total Units Under Review
Added Total Units
Proposed Reevaluation Reviewed in
Site Name EIS Study Area Status Acres Units Units Reevaluation
A Glennwood Townhomes Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Construded RHA 0.65 8 8
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes Swap Site,North Study Area Under Construction RHA 0.77 18 18
C Edmonds Apartments Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Future Development RHA 1.70 99 13 112
_ _. _ _ ___r_ .-- __ _ __ -- - - _ _ __ - -- -. _ -,
` D Sunset Terrace�4partments Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan OS3 41 13 54 ;
'; E Sunset Park West7ownhomes Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master 51te Plan 0,55' 10 :. 30 'i �
F Sunset Court Townhomes Swap Site,Central Study Area Future Development RHA 0.88 15 15
- --- ---- _ _ .__ ____ _ . __ __
, -� _
' G ' Sunset Park East(Piha)7ownhbmes&Apts 5unset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 1.09 56 1 57
g p Plan 0,99 ; 111 6 ' 117 , f
H Sunset 7errace Dev.Buildin A Sunset 7errace Redevelo meM' Part of Master Site
; I 'Sunset Terrace Dev.Bufiding B SunseC Terrace Redevelopment part of Master Site Pian 1�18 188 8 ' 196 `
';J Sunset terrace Dev.Building C Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.74 104 - 6 110 ;
; K Renton Highlands Library 5unset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan See H
;' L Regional 5tormwater Facility ' Sunset Terrace Redevelopmenf Part of Master S�te Plan See M ,!
; M Sunset Park ; , Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Pfan 3.2 ' ;
( N Sunset Lane Loop improvements Sunset Terrace Redevelopment -Part of Master Site Plan 1A1
'; 0 NE 30th Street Extension Jmprovements Sunset Tecrace Redevelopment Part of Master Site Plan 0.20 �;
X .. Library Site(2013) Swap Site Central Study Area . Future Development 1 41 25 25
..............�--....---- - ...--�-- ��---�--.......--�--•--..............---�--....----...........................---.....-�--•---�--.........---....
Totals ......-��--�--- -�........... .....15.28-----------�--......675 47----.........---- �-�-722---��--�-
-....--�� -��-- ... --�-�---��-----�--�-�� -��...... ...................-..--�--- --��--�- -�---... ��--�-----.......__....---� ......--......-- .......- .....- - -�--� ....... �-��-- --�� --
Total Units:Difference Master Plan Proposals with EIS Preferred Alternative +162 +209
Total Units:Difference with EIS Alternative 3 +43 +90
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,Mithun,BERK 2014
Notes: Shaded sites=Master Plan Sites.
Note: Units may be redistributed among sites provided the Reevaluation conclusions are maintained.
Re-evaluation units are 90 units more than the Alternative 3 total and are spread generally to reflect:1)Development of Sunset Court at 15 units(not originally part of Alternative �
3 though considered to be part of the Preferred Alternative);2)13 units to the Edmonds Apartments to match the level studied in Alternative 3;3)RHA preferences for share and
distribution(10 units to Site D Sunset Terrace Apartments,1 unit to Site G Sunset Park East(Piha),and 3 to spread as wished,but applied for a conservative analysis to Site D to
consider highest possible density above the individual zone limit);and 4)distributed roughly in proportion to proposed units and rounded to even numbers for analysis purposes
only since the proposed 20 units may be spread in any combination to Sites H,I,and J.
Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard setback.Lot depths are 125 feet east of Harrington
Avenue NE for Lots 9/10,and 130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries and a small setback
from Sunset Lane NE.
September 2014 9
RENTQN SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 7. Reevaluation Alternative: Master Plan Sites
Sunset Terrace Master Site Plan
�' .��:��5"_ Rr.� '� ���.. w �d '1 � . � ' ,....-.� *k,.r.. �
,
���u �°" �„ � � � � t a��` I � ���*� � �
x, �_.� � � ;� � �� ,6. �
� t.....,� � 11 Ri
\y � 14, 16/17 � a �, ��� � ��� / ,
� � � �n �� // �� � , �
. \ r� � .. .����_` _ W� —'\ �f �J��%/1 � � ps.a
� \ r ..5 �.. `v... , � ����. �� / b� � �.
\ L \\\ � ��\ �4 Y �4 / �• �+ �O
� \ Je � � /r 5
\ d } ` .� �� �� �r
�g � , � \\�� . '� ����'�.�,� ? ''/,— \` '� n/��� y���vO �i ,.
�� � \\ N\�� 1\ ', NELGH9 H D', \ `� k
G \ , ��. �J �/ rr �r.
J3 \\ ZN�� �t\~ �\ P � �` _ '�\ / ��\ � �,
��'J m 6�7 �' � ,{. 4 � ��. . ?� �, /i
y� � k� y�� $ �\
� � i `�� � r ',.�� �\
�'�A •: \:,,��1 f �o ,`
�j i0a -� ' : / �sr `�,
� � ,� ` ,� �, � f � .�
� ��`�'/ `
,. .
,�. , ,, / I ��� '� •�� � � \
.,.�"� �" � �\ � — -- :�j''� / ��r. $ '�
4,,. � Z/8 !' / �
, .
�n� `'�% �
KEY ', , � d., .� ,,t�/
�+ 1
,'.l'J RESI�ENTIAL � ` � `' $� � ������ , ��� \� /� �
� MIXED-USE � -�.:! r �r . „`ti""a' \ \� / � 1
�W �COMMUNITY , � ��... 3 �, ' 1. \ j �:�.�,. �?a�2�! .'�
—•_' SITE AREA. �.� ,?..�, , � � ,�,:�:� �Y��:,,� � .'� �._ . ,-., � � `,a�� 1
y~� ' ..�-.I�., �m �`��� I �-:,J I� �` �' �' ��' � �'L�
„-_�—�� -�-� !
Augue119,2014 M I T H U N
Note:Site 7/8 may be Residential or Mixed Use. Prepared by:Mithun
September 2014 10 ^
ti
►
i y� ���
REt�TON SUhSET C�Nlh�tINITY,�REA
REEVALUATI�N�[�D RDDEA"DUM
�.� �CJ€Ef��C� ��i���f '€�c`�s.s�E��3f �?t`�€E�� �:�:� (�L�`��C ���E`tt:iw:[`�a
Four locations in the Master Plan, all zoned Center Village (CV) and lying south and west on the original
Sunset Terrace public housing property, now propose plans that are difFerent than standard code
requirements for building height,density,onsite open space,setbacks, and building coverage: Sites D, H,
I, and J. Other code interpretations are needed for clarity,such as parking for civic uses (Site M, Park) or
to allow the potential for joint parking arrangements (Sites H and I). Some of these variations require
additional permits while others require modification through site plan review. Each topic is addressed
below.See also Section 2.5 regarding building coverage.
�G`E�«:,`.i"'.� i`�€��"��
The FEIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 assumed that the heights in the zoning districts would
be the maximum height of future development. In four locations, the Reevaluation Alternative would
exceed the maximum height of the zone(see Exhibit 8):
• Site D Sunset Terrace Apartments, Property 5:A multifamily building is proposed at 60 feet instead
of the zone maximum of 50 feet attaining an additional story.
• Site H Sunset Terrace Dev. Building A, Property 9:A mixed use building is proposed at 68 feet
instead of 60 feet allowed for buildings with ground floor commercial.
• Site I Sunset Terrace Dev. Building B, Property 7/8:A multifamily residential building is proposed at
62 feet instead of 50 feet allowed for single use development.
• Site 1 Sunset Terrace Dev. Building C, Property 6/7:A multifamily residential building is proposed at
58 feet instead of 50 feet allowed for single use development.
The increases in height are proposed to accommodate the larger park site, which has increased beyond
the range of alternatives in the FEIS; in exchange for the larger open space the buildings have increased
in height to accommodate additional dwelling units. The increased height would require approval of a
conditional use permit (RMC 4-9-030 Conditional Use Permits), addressed in the Master Plan
Application, under separate cover. The potential aesthetic effects are addressed in Reevaluation Section
3.0.
September 2014 il
(
� �i� •
REN i Ot�SU(�SET CC3�t�1Jt�{TY aREA
EiEEV�LU�T1�N Af�D kDDEf�dUM .
Exhibit 8. Height Analysis
Greateror
Total Zone
Property Area Proposed Lesser Than
Proposed Maximum
perSite Plans Units with guilding g Maximum
Hei ht
Heightin Peet Height
Pro'ect Name Reevaluation
RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units _
D SunsetTerrace Apartments 0.51 54 60.0 50.00 l0A
E Sunset Park West Townhomes 0.55 10 30.0 30.00 -
G Sunset Park East Piha Townhomes and A artme 1.09 57 48•� �•� Z•�
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects , - --
H SunsetTerrace Dev.BuildingA 0.99 117 68.0 60•00 g•�-
I SunsetTerrace Dev.Buiiding6 1.18 196 62.0 50.00�. `_ 12.0:
J SunsetTerrece Dev.BuildingC OJ4 110 58.0 50•00 __ 8•4
K Renton Highiands Library See lot 9 27.0 60.00 (33.0)
L Regional5tormwaterFacility Seepark
M Sunset Park 3.20
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvemenu 1.41
O NE lOth Street Fxtension,Im rovements 0.20
Total Sunset Terrace Im rovement Pro'ects 9•$7 �
Densi Exicludin Ri hts of Wa �
Note: On Site I,if the building included mixed uses,the zone maximum height would be 60 feet,which would alter the
amount by which the building exceeds the height.
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014
�a�[�k�`�
The same four sites exceeding height would individually exceed the maximum density of the CV Zone as
shown in Exhibit 9.Viewed in the context of the overall Sunset Terrace public housing site (Sites D, H, I,1
and M), which since 2011 has been planned comprehensively as a coordinated mixed use
redevelopment project with park amenities, the density would equal about 65 units an acre, which is
less than the 80 units per acre maximum.
September 2014 12
,
. � ,�,
REi�i ON SUf3SET CC7NiM[�(�tTY AREA
REEV,�LU�TI�N A;�D ADDENDfJh�
Exhibit 9. Density Analysis
Ta�� � Greateror
PropertyArea ' Zone
per5ite Plans Proposed � Maximum �sserthan
Units with Density � Mazimum
Density
Pro'ect Name Reevaluation Reevaluation � Densi
RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement,and Affordable Housing Units
D SunsetTerrace Apartments 0.51 54 106.8� 80.0 26.8
E Sunset Park WestTownhomes 0.55 30 183� 18.0 f 03
G Sunset Park East Piha Townhomes and A artme 1.09 57 52.2 I 80.0 (27.8
OtherSunsetTerrace Publicand Private Projects �
B 0.99 117 118.2� 80A 38.2�
H SunsetTerrece Dev.Buildin A
I SunsetTerrace Dev.Building B 1.18 196 166.0: 80.0 86A
J SunsetTerrece Dev.BuildingC OJ4 110 1483� 80A 68.3
K Renton Highlands Library See lot 9 �
L Regional5tormwaterFacility See park j
M Sunset Park 3,20
I
N Sunset Lane Loop Improvements 1.41 �
0 NE 10th Street 6ctension,Im rovements 0.20
TotalSunset Terrace Im rovement Pro'ec[5 9.87 544 55.1•
Densi Exlcludin Ri hts of Wa 5q4 62.8 I
Note:Densi forsites artofori inal5unsetTerra 7.3 477 65.3
Note: Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet
front yard setback.Lot depths are 125 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lotr 9/10,and
130 west of Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries
and a small setback from Sunset Lane NE.
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014
Site E,Sunset Park West Townhomes proposes a density of 183 units.The R-14 zone allows a maximum
of 18 units per net acre subject to criteria such as providing affordable housing plus site amenities or
well-designed parking.The density of 18.3 units per acre is slightly above 18 units per acre; however the
definition of net density in RMC Chapter 4-11 allows the City to round down when fractional density
numbers are less than 0.5.
:�y{,c,:�€��
In total, across all Master Plan sites, 745 parking stalls are proposed. See Attachment A. On Site H if the
number of units is slightly increased per Exhibit 6 above, about 6 more stalls would be needed on that
block; however there is more than needed parking on Site I. A Joint Parking Agreement could be
developed prior to future site plan approval addressing any shared parking arrangements, provided
parking is within 750 feet of the intended site(4-4-080(E)(3)).
RMC4-4-080(F)(10] does not specify a parking standard for parks, and a Director's determination would
be needed; as a neighborhood park primarily serving adjacent development, non-motorized travel
would be the primary mode of arriving at the park. Both the park and the regional storm water facility
require maintenance access and load/unload areas which have been identified and located through the
master planning process.
Regarding the library, there appears to be a mis-print in the code requiring 40 stalls per 1,000 square
feet of cultural space, but the likely required rate was intended to be 4 per 1,000 square feet;this topic
was addressed in the Site Plan Review approval previously issued for the library site.
��S[ee' �?''��r� �=�e�c�
In the CV zone,common open space is required to be provided at a rate of fifty(50)square feet per unit.
The City may allow substitutions in light of the public park provided adjacent to the properties. See RMC
September 2014 13
(
� � �
REftTt7f�S�I�SET CGt�ifl�[�(TY ARE�4
REE4`�LU:,T1�N�a��°a fi����vD�Jf1�
4-1-240 for Common Open Space Substitutions. This would likely require payment of a Fee in Lieu of
Common Open Space.This would be addressed in future Site Plan Review applications.
Private open space is required to be provided for each dwelling unit. A preponderance of the future
dwelling units will have private open space such as in the form of decks. However, at the time of Site
Plan Review, the Director may approve modifications such as a percentage of units that may have
alternative private open space standards if ineeting the overall intent of design standards and other
criteria at 4-3-100(F)and RMC 4-9-250(D).
�`°�����s
The CV zone setback requires a minimum 10 foot setback which may be reduced to 0 feet as part of the
site plan development review process,provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback.
The conceptual Master Plan reflects the future boundary of SR 900 once improvements are made per
the plans in the 2011 FEIS. With the difficult property configuration along SR 900 (a "U"dip) and the
Sunset Lane to the north,the depth of the lots is constrained particularly at Site H.Therefore, as part of
this Master Plan approval, the City will allow setbacks of 0 feet matched to the future right of way line
needed to accommodate SR 900 improvements. The City may also allow 0 foot setbacks from Sunset
Lane NE;the library site has already been partly under construction and has at least a five foot setback
from NE Sunset Lane.
�.� �=�f�[�; �C�� ��"��`v_�"�:E.:°��:��'C� � �y�����i�
,��.C� Eeat . .,.e. :f:� '��[,�C�u� �,.,., #� ��,
a �s,�c�ar�c�..�€' t` o ."�
Considering the need to address the future boundary of SR 900 and the desire to meet recreational
needs of the future residents,the Sunset Park space was increased from the Preferred Alternative range
of 2.1-2.65 acres (FEIS Chapter 2 and Appendix C)to 3.2 acres.The future 3.2 acre (approximate)Sunset
Neighborhood Park in the current Master Plan Application is in a public master planning phase and is the
subject of ongoing public meetings. A regional stormwater facility will be co-located within the future
park site, (the location of which has been determined through soils analysis), and is also included as part
of the master planning process (Preferred Concept-Storm Water Facility). Potentia� recreation amenities
to be included will be consistent with the Design Guidelines for Neighborhood Parks as adopted in the
Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (2012).
A perimeter park sidewalk (on park property) will not be included; curbs will be provided. Specific
design details for either the Sunset Neighborhood Park or the Regional Stormwater Facility will be
determined during the design phase. The anticipated final park conceptual master plan adoption date is
December 2014.
See parking section above regarding load and unload spaces.
�:E`c�L ��t�:��r€'�v�:[�€Y"s
The City is considering street reclassifications and two new street sections for roads that have 60-foot
rights of way presently: Green Collector and Neighborhood Collector. See the preliminary Exhibit 10.
Based on a review by CH2MHill, the 60 foot right of way is consistent with the "Green Connections"
cross section in the Sunset Area Surface Water Master Plan. However, the Green Connections can only
be implemented in some locations and therefore a 60 foot cross-section for a Neighborhood Collector is '
also proposed.
September 2014 14
�
' . �r °�.r
REhlTON SUhSET C�fViM�f�(TY AREA
REEV�LUATION f�l�D lk�DEt�DU��I
Exhibit 10.Street Reclassification Map
-- -- :-t- - ---�-�JE21s[St� -'- - -
_ ��- NE37stSt -- - _ , . i - _ �-.
k,
Z I NE 20th-St W��- . — i= _ , i D, ,-��-� � •,�� -- E-27st� y
� i 2 i i �i 9 �. � o
Q� ,�_ -NE20th St�' , a4`� �!�""5 �� j��_. i m .
�� -� -��-� - i --�.__.. � �-5 ? �'� � m
- c '�, - � . � �-r:s � �SEtOSth Pl���
m� _��--5-_ ' a�:J . ` �,t �_ 1 - . ----
- - ° — :N��stnsr ,� �
- �I..NE 18th'Si' � �� ��.. I — -
� ~�•_._��181h - ----- - --
�. __. �_ NF 1812SY �-�9 - , �' _` -
-K) -'NE�2tL�Pl_.' � �__ ._te -- i--- � - 1 - -
.3 -, -I-. :_�� � � � ��F �NE�7BiPJ_ ' --
�.� : - - -t��i ,j _
---, . , � L- . -. . �
� .w .. . �__- -. .
. . . �'�' - . .
— _ __ c:=� � ..
',,`� -T. ''. ` "' , I -� �
N�iSth q� � i�t=- � NE�71hSt . _...
�z w --- f' . y te — - _ .
m-z --�w�- --` /'' . . . I �' � � _ —�i z---
_ � _2,_ .-__---- ._� a-�- i.: �,y�� , d
a � I Q� _
---�:, -C)' � ' �, . �Op��.. �--- ''�_ _ �CI L+? I _.-'_Q� ,_W
_ ... E_- -1 :- _ .
R-- - . ---'-- -t � `'�
-�=-m�-� i L y� j .�;� _- -- ^ �---o--_;
�- _—oJ I I j-m.�- -° i ' .;�` - ! �'-'-�_
- _ '.-; �j `__�-z � i, , -� -_
-_ t �r-- I--N `�s�— . < �---�
- -�fi �;�`
TiE13th�lyi _� __..��' `--; ; _ Q -. -..NE93�:.
--�_� a- �2 ' �"S.'� -- E93fh 5t �� -a_... =-Z.
� �,. ��� 3� m ,__� -
.. F;� ,!�-- � ---
_` �' c-NEl St , . � i i �"--' - o -� ' a.—.--
� �-° -__- I . I..% `�— �--' ��I -m----
�. � � �
.�.70- O -.-a . ...'__' � - � -�� -a- -_.
a 3- I v� i '�—� �-- ----��
.. '� --- .-. ..�e ,�� � � �� m -- � �� '�� i -w
s � --'z - i�„•,
NE P k'D�I--z^ — D�V� r��� � �-'�t �'C4� - a Ir— - ¢ c
-n*-� , � � a 1 .
�S 8,�,`'q a--- j_ i3---- __,�mfi �'',•' � ��-� `��c�- _ _ 3- = NE��fi-a� _-.�__�
et-� � �d c-- � ��`•-
h a � ---� i i -a
5� � -1- -�.. 'S.o' e '�s,� �� -- NEli"Ih St -
�� .-��' �_ �:. � 4� - � _ - -I --- ----- -
� ���m .� - �,��' �l � - -IVE-70th PI-�--
D ' _ _
� _ I I t„�L _ � ._ �_ ., I �. '�__ -:-I.
; ,- �� - - ,,�� � , P�eNE � � _ : ProposedSunsetX�rea �c_
' � ,= - � ,�� ---_ �_ _ `Stree#Classification -
4�
NE iothsi ' -_ ,,�� ,�e� ' u Green Collector,70'-83' �
�. -� ,,,�_,;� ,. �` �m , � Ln
—n7E-7otn,�o,y� ;=M�� w� ' --- - Green Connection �
_m�
NE su'Pi - � '_ 'zi '' -', �__�LimRed Residential,45 --
� -�! \f NE >I-a J I
-1JE 9NAly : G g-- r �
I L I
i i ,, �i I � i ��' �_ , _ Minor Arterial -_
� �" g ` ' _._ I�
- NE 9n�st- - ?� Maed Use-Commercial, T
.._ I���:_"-�,_� -e--- '- -
- '- w ' � �- �� .- ' - ' �69'-80' -
�lEBthPt- Z .W- ----- ' Cr ._, - � -
-- -2' w z_ i _. � �� i -
q z-a. ; I �. ,l�E: -m i - ....
m °'-a- � _ ,� ,. o_ - - Neighborhood
NFett'St�-o o--��- ' n_{ 7s.. $-� -I-- E�Collector,60' �1
Q-�- I - �E a� �- Principal Arterial,91'- �
- � -I � ,_ � r m � ` *-���25'
NEsb'nqA�y ..__�^, ~ � � I_pl - -��ResideMial
NF � _ _ ih St a--.a � � . .
s�P� i x _ - m SunsetLane NE Loop, `-
- - � - � �' - - °ro �45
- - - z� _ - 'PO -' ,
- - - -:m- --
- � — ---� - —
D 250 500 � 1,OD0 _
Feet
Source:City of Renton CED 2014;BERK 2014
September 2014 15
t
� � s
REM1iTG�t�SUt��ET CO�Mt�NETY�.REA
REEVkLUATIQN Al�D�DDr�vQUM
Sunset Lane NE and the extension of NE 10th would consist of a local access loop road, and have a width
of 49 feet.See Exhibit 11.
Exhibit 11. Sunset Lane NE and NE lOth Typical Section
N'PItOPOSED WGMT-OF-WAY
r T !' 20' e �
: S�Ejyp;K puN7ER PARKMG 'htAyF1UNE PARKNG ;
� �
� �
'
' I � �—�. I � '
�
I �.. � � .__-
� �� � ■
...,a.�.-_, ...__.�,.� ..�..�.._._.,.r�-� �..— �� _ _..�—.�
Sunset Lane—49'ROW
Source:CH2MHill 2014
�.� ��,��-.��'�tt��:� ��E�:�
�.�i:i� �:.v`;;�E r�C€�:€�=�6�
In support of the NEPA/SEPA process, an analysis of change in impervious surfaces was addressed in the
FEIS. Additionally, consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
the proposal has been evaluated with respect to its potential effects on species listed or proposed for
listing under the ESA.A biological assessment was prepared and submitted to the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in December 2010 for its concurrence with a finding that the proposal may
affect,but is not likely to adversely affect,anadromous fish protected under the ESA,and would have no
effect on any ESA-protected species under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service jurisdiction. The City and NMFS
corresponded in January, February, and April 2011 on NMFS questions. The City received a letter of
concurrence in May 2011.
Exhibit 12 shows the land cover analysis associated with FEIS Alternative 3, and Exhibit 13 shows the
analysis associated with the Preferred Alternative.
Exhibit 12. FEIS Alternative 3 Land Cover Analysis
Total Total Total Effective
Total Area Impervious Pervious Area Total PGIS Untreated Impervious
Location (acres) Area(acres) (acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)
Potential ReplacementSites 3.06 2.28 0.78 0.62 0.26 2.14
_ _ _ .
�oterrtial5unsetTerrace' 12.64 ': 7.04 6.02 2.43 0 4.22 '
ltedevelopment Suba rea
Total 15.70 932 6.80 3.05 0.26 636
Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkling,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
September 2014 16
. ,�,; �
RE(�TC3N SUI�SET COfVitG�UNITY QREA
REE�r�LtlATIGN Af4D AL��JehlDUt�ll
Exhibit 13. FEIS Preferred Alternative Land Cover Analysis
Effective
Totai Area Total Impervious Total Pervious Total PGIS Total Untreated Impervious
Location (acres) Area(acres) Area(acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)
Potential Replacement Sites 3.06 2.57 0.49 0.41 0 239
Potential5unsetTerrace 12.64 5.1 6.54 1.7 0 3.66
Redevelopment Subareaa '
Total 15.70 8.67 7.03 2.11 0 6.15
Source: CH2MHill,April 29,2011,memo to Erika Conkiing,City of Renton,Summary of Sunset Terrace Land Coverage Analysis
in Response to NMFS Comments
A preliminary analysis of land cover in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea has been
prepared in Exhibit 14, relying on preliminary site plans for Master Plan sites (D, E, G, H, I,J, K, L, M, N,
and O) plus built conditions for the Glennwood Townhomes (Site A; using Google Earth measurements)
and the Alternative 3 layout for Edmonds Apartments (Site C). An assumption for the Park/Regional
Stormwater area (Site L and M) is that 35% of the 3.2 acre area would be impervious; however the
property is in the design phase and this is speculative.
In comparison to Alternative 3, the preliminary analysis indicates that total acres within the Potential '
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea is slightly lower due to adjustments in rights-of-way needs, and
the total impervious area is also a little lower due to the lesser Sunset Terrace Right-of-Way and larger
park. While total pervious is a little lower, there are also less pollutant generating impervious surfaces
(PGIS) as there appears to be less surface parking in the Master Plan than in Alternative 3. Effective
impervious area is also a little lower than Alternative 3.Therefore the Reevaluation Alternative is in the
range of the prior analysis and no further analysis or conditions are needed in association with the
Master Plan. NMFS was contacted on April 7, 2014 (pers com Janet Curran, NMFS) and indicated that
informal communication with information demonstrating no new impacts would suffice for the record.
The City has contacted NMFS with documentation as part of this review process in September 2014.
Exhibit 14. Preliminary Land Cover Analysis Master Plan and Related Sites
Effective
Total Area Total Impervious Total Pervious Total PGIS Total Untreated Impervious
Location (acres) Area(acres) Area(acres) (acres) PGIS(acres) (acres)*
Potential5unsetTerrace 12.22 . 6.87 5.35 1.21 0 4.12
Redevelopment Subarea ,
Source:Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,CH2MHilI,BERK 2014
Note: *Per FEIS&BA,assumes that 40%of the impervious area in the site would be mitigated with flow control BMPs.
Assumes that 35�of the 3.2 acre park site would be impervious.
The regional stormwater facility in Sunset Park will address flow control for SR 900 roadway water
quality treatment. Onsite developments would provide for their own water quality treatment. The
regional facility in the Park is designed for SR 900 and is not designed to receive any stormwater from
the Master Plan area,and per the grant funding,this site cannot be used for mitigation.
c��E L:u�°�C��E ��,�Ctc_€�"�f�
The Renton Zoning Code includes standards for building cover in the CV and R-14 zones and maximum
impervious surface levels in the R-14 zone.All sites meet lot coverage standards,except for Sites D, H/K,
I, and J individually. See Exhibit 15. However, collectively, with the Park site the CV zone sites do meet
September 2014 17
�r � .
REtkTOhl S�CVSET E�R(IA�!!.�[�[TY 1`�REA
REEVQLUC�TION AttD,4�DEt�QCf�VI
the CV zone requirements, and is consistent with the overall Master Plan approach to the sites. Site E
meets the maximum 85%impervious coverage with only 53%in coverage.
Exhibit 15. Lot Coverage Analysis
� Total Lot/Site Total Bldg Area Lot Coverage
Ske Letter Buildin Name Zone Total Aaes Area s ft Foot rint s ft Percent Zone Standard• Dffference
� D SunsetTerraceApartments CV O51 22,024 11,250 51% 65% -23.9%
75%
E SunsetParkTownhomes West R-14 0.55 23779 6000 25% None -39.8%
Sunset ParkTownhomes East
G (Piha Site) CV 1.09 47,602 22,105 46% 65% -28.6%
75%
SunsetTerrece Developmenu Lots .
H 9/10 N 0.99 43,124 38,680 90% 65% �,.14.7%, �___._.
Includes 15K
K Librar Iibrer 75%
SunsetTerrace Developments Lots
� 7�g CV 1.18 51,418 41,799 81% 65% ���.�6.3% ....
75%
SunsetTerreceDevelopmentsLots ��' . �
� 6�-j CV 0.74 32,300 28,017 87% 65% _-�._11_7%���_
75%
M Sunset Neighborhood Park N 3Z0 139,392 0% 65% -75%
L includin StormwaterFacili 75%
TomIAIlMasterPlanLnts,excludingRightsofWay�-��. � � ; 8.26� - 359,639 . 147,851 41% � � �� - �.
Total LV Zooe Onl: :� . � . .. � . � � 7.�1 �:. - 335,860- � � 141.551 � .�..42% . � . . .
Source:Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,CH2MHill,BERK 2014
Note: *CV Zone:65%of total lot area or 75�if parking is provided within the building or within an on-site parking garage.
Parcel acres for properties along SR 900 assume dedication of ROW per the 2011 SR 900 Conceptual Plan and 0 feet front yard
setback.Lot depths are 125 feet east of Harrington Avenue NE consistent with the VEER site plan for Lots 9/10,and 130 west of
Harrington Avenue NE to allow for sufficient depths of buildings that have underbuilding parking,odd geometries and a small
setback from Sunset Lane NE.
�.� ��'�:�r�: ���:� e.:`4� ���"'a��' �4�Gi?�E=`,rt ,G�' �,��:��c�f�;`i:
Most immediately, the City is intending to consider a Master Plan per RMC 4-9-200. For each Master
Plan site, a number of current and future permits are also anticipated. See Exhibit 16. Additionally, in
association with the Master Plan approval, a conditional use permit to exceed height standards
consistent with RMC 4-9-030 is proposed. Administrative allowances for 0 foot front yard setbacks are
under consideration. Interpretations of cumulative density and lot coverage in light of the park area,and
the Director's determination regarding parking for the Sunset Park site are also being addressed in
association with the Master Plan.
The Reevaluation and Addendum also result in minor revisions of the ROD and Planned Action
Ordinance to reflect the revised master plan.
Other permits and approvals would also follow, such as lot line adjustments/subdivisions, right of way
dedications and easements, phased / detailed site plans and associated design modifications where
appropriate. Last,building and construction permits would be sought.
September 2014 18
RENTON 5UtV5EY CQMMUNITY AREA .
REEVALUATIQN AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 16. Matrix of Permits
A rovals and Permits Summer 2014 Future Permits Permits with Site Plan Review
� a o d o ¢ o d c � e � � e Z' �e c �
a v L' 3 a9 '.Y a o v"'i 'g° � E c w :^ ° y � 3 � am � m _ ° m � ,'J'_
m t c � rc a � 3 m � ,9 > E � 3 � E 'a w � O `� c m °° '° � � � �2' €
` m `
r„ e" w Ls Li Q a > � � v x 9 rc °' P! v � 'o a � a 'o �+ � ;° Yn
m = o y -� y d +c Z � �p E s > ; 'n � N z c c '^ e c � o � e s
Site Pro'ect Name � � � � � °C °� a a � � g � �'�' � � m u
RHASunsetTerrace•SunsetAresRe lacementendAfiordableHousin Uniu
_. _
D SunsetTerraceA artments X X X X X X X X
E Sunset Park WestTownhomes X X X X X X X X
G Sunset Park East Piha Townhomes and A artments X X X X x
Other Sunset Terrace Publlc and Private Pro ects �
H SunsetTerrace Dev.Buildin A X X X X X X X X X X X
I SunsetTerrace Dev.Bulldin B X X X X X X X X X X X X
J SunsetTerrace Dev.8uildin C X X X X X X X X X X X X
K RentonHi hlandslibra X X X X NotA Iicable:Alread a roved
L Re ional5tormwaterFacilit X X X X
M SunsetPark X X X X X
N Sunset Lane Loo Im rovements X X X X I
O NE lOth Sheet Extension,Im rovements X X X X I
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014
�
September 2014 19
� � �
REI�TuN 5[��vSET CG3fti�sf��UhETY AREA
nEtVQLUATI�tv�.[4����?ENdJf�f
�.i ��"i��E�E;
The redevelopment of the study area and broader neighborhood was anticipated to occur over a
number of years.The Master Plan sites will generally be phased over a 10 year period in approximately 5
phases.See Exhibit 17.
Exhibit 17.Site Phasing
Phasin
RHA Sunset Terrace-Sunset Area Replacement and Affordable Housing Units
A Glennwood Townhomes 1141-47 Glennwood Ave NE Completed
B Kirkland Avenue Townhomes 15U8-22 Kirkland Ave Phase 1
C Edmonds Apartments Edmonds Ave NE Site Phase 5
'D 5unsetTerraceApartments SunsetTerraceLotS Phase4
�E _-SunsetPark WestTownhomes, _-----. .... - ,_- Node Lots,--.- _---- _Phase 5 ___-
-
F SunsetCourtTownhomes 1104HarringtonAveNE
,. -- - - -. ... ___-- - — --..- ---- --- - ----- - _ _ __.
G Sunset Park East Piha Townhomes and A artments NE lOth Site Phase 5
Other Sunset Terrace Public and Private Projects
_ __ -_- - - -- --- - - - --
H SunsetTerraceDev.BuildingA SunsetTerreceLnt9 Phasel
'J Sunset Terrace Dev.Building B Sunset Terrace Lots 7J8 - Phase 2
�1 Sunset Terrace Dev.Building C Sunsei Temace Lots 6/7 Phase 3
K Renton Highlands Library , Sunset Terrace Lot 10 Phase 1
l Regional Stormwater Fadlity Sunset Terrace Lot 12 Phase 2
'M Sunset Park Sunset Terrace Lot 12 Phase 4
'N Sunset tane Loop Improvements Sunset Lane NE Extended with lltilities
O NE i0th Street Extension,Im rovements 280a?900 NE lOth St Extended with lltilities
X Library Site 1902 NE 12TH ST Phase 5
Sources:Veer,Schemata,Colpitts,City of Renton,Renton Housing Authority,BERK 2014
���d ��,4 ti�L�'u`E��F'E��t'-��P"l� ����8F�k[s�b"���vL
The analysis of each element of the environment below compares the conclusions from the FEIS
selected alternatives (Alternative 3/Preferred Alternative)to the Reevaluation Alternative. It concludes
that the revised Master Plan would not change impacts significantly from those identified in the FEIS.
�e� ��.�� ����u
The Land Use analysis in the FEIS concluded that the Sunset Area subarea would advance the
Comprehensive Plan and zoning code Center Village (CV) concept. . It would serve as an incentive for
other redevelopment opportunities near the study area. Anticipated growth would also help the City
meet its 2031 housing and employment targets. These conclusions are still valid for the Reevaluation
Alternative which promotes a mixed use redevelopment with open space and civic amenities.
Selected Sunset Area Alternatives anticipated a range of 266-479 more dwelling units than existing
conditions in a mixed-use development that integrates commercial and civic spaces. The Reevaluation
Alternative would provide a maximum of 554 net units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
subarea; a,greater number of units would be(ocated in the immediate study area, but net growth in the
overall Sunset Area neighborhood would not change from that evaluated in the FEIS.The Reevaluation
Alternative would continue to implement the overall vision for the Sunset Area neighborhood in City
plans and codes. Where there are differences between the Revaluation Alternative and specifics of the
Renton Municipal Code (RMC),application for modifications or conditional uses would be made;the City
September 2014 20
� �
REl�FON SUhlSET CpMMUNtTY�REA
REEV,�LUATION AND�.DDEf�DUfVI
will evaluate such proposals based on the City's adopted criteria, which promote compliance with the
intent of standards.Therefore, no changes in overall FEIS conclusions are anticipated.
� FEIS mitigation measures would still be applicable and appear to be well implemented by the
Reevaluation alternative since it provides a "protected" large open space, the most intensive
development along SR 900,and less intense development on the north side of the(oop road:
The City shal!require construction p/ans to:
• Locate the majority of the most intensive non-residentia! development along or near NESunset
Boulevard, where possible.
• lmplement proposed open space and landscape features to offset the proposed intensification of
land uses on the site. '
• Provide new opportunities for public open space area.
• As part of site design, emphasize transitions in density, with less intense densities where abutting
lower-intensity zones.(ROD Attachment C, Table 16J
The City's site plan review and construction review processes are in place to coordinate dedications and
easements:
The Ciry and RHA should coordinate on future Sunset Terrace redevelopment and Planned Action Study
Areo streetscape improvements to ensure that property acquisition that affecfs buildings is minimized.
(ROD Attochment C,TobJe 16J
�.� r����i��fL�S
As described in Sections 2.2 and 2.3, the Reevaluation Alternative will incorporate approximately 90
more housing units than the number proposed under FEIS Alternative 3. Reconfiguration of the central
park has reduced the footprints of adjacent buildings, commensurately increasing height and density at
these locations. The following sections provide an overview of existing conditions and evaluate the
aesthetic impacts associated with these changes.
�i� :e�GC�4'� '�:c�� �.���r=fif
Existing aesthetic conditions are documented in detail in Chapter 3.12.1 of the Draft NEPA/SEPA EIS. As
described in that document, the built environment in the study area generally consists of one- and two-
story single-family, multifamily, and commercial buildings at relatively low development intensity,
though some three-story apartment buildings are present, as well. Much of the housing stock in the area
is older,and many of the structures, both residential and commercial,are in need of repair.
Overall, visual bulk, as well as light and glare, are quite low. Most of the light and glare present in the
study area is generated by vehicular traffic on NE Sunset Boulevard. Sidewalks in the area are often
narrow or not present, and the streetscape is generally lacking in pedestrian amenities, though mature
street trees are present in many areas.
��'ii��C��
As described in Section 2.0, the construction of additional housing units in the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Area, combined with reconfiguration of the park, would result in additional building
height beyond the level studied under Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative studied in the
NEPA/SEPA EIS,specifically at Sites H, I,and J proposed for development along NE Sunset Boulevard.
September 2014 Z1
;�, � •
REtv�Ct�SL`f�SET CC3f�fJit�t�ETY AReA
REEVC.L�JL►TI�N Af�D AC�d�t��UPJ[
See Exhibit 18 which shows proposed maximum heights under consideration (depending on location 52-
68 feet in building heights are proposed;the diagram shows elevations at 50, 60, and 70 feet).The focus
is on the subject site; while current buildings on adjacent sites to the south are lower scale presently,
they have similar CV zoning and ability to achieve 50-60 feet in height.
�;.�`;�:��P v'E��r��`_�r
Relative to Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, the Reevaluation Alternative would represent
very minor additional changes to the visual character of the Sunset Terrace Redeve�opment Area. The
overall character of the neighborhood would continue its transition from a low-rise, low-intensity land
use pattern to a higher-density, mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented village. Though the Reevaluation
Alternative would further intensify this pattern, improvements to the streetscape and pedestrian
environment that will accompany future development, such as bicyale lanes, planted medians, and
enlarged sidewalks, will provide aesthetic improvements over the current visual character of the area.
With application of required design standards and implementation of the mitigation measures
established in the NEPA/SEPA EIS, no additional significant adverse impacts to visual character are
anticipated.
�=�`�f��t a:':� ��,.t
The Reevaluation Alternative would introduce additional building height in the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment, beyond the level evaluated in the NEPA/SEPA EIS. Alternative 3 evaluated building
heights of 2-4 stories, which was within the range of current zoning regulations. The Reevaluation
Alternative would introduce building heights of 5-6 stories along NE Sunset Boulevard, which would
exceed the current maximum height allowed by zoning. This would increase the visual prominence of
development in the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area, particularly given the location of future
buildings on Sites H, I, and J along NE Sunset Boulevard, which is a high-traffic street. Site D with an
additional story would be greater in height than development to the west. Exceeding the maximum
allowed building height would require a conditional use permit from the City, to which conditions may
be applied to mitigate potential impacts of views from public spaces such as SR 900 and the future
Sunset Park.
The Reevaluation Alternative would also, however, include a larger amount of park space in the
Redevelopment Area, which wou�d provide a substantial amenity to area residents and reduce the
overall visual impression of height and bulk from viewers located further northward of the loop road or
in development west of the site. For park users, who would be closer to the proposed buildings,
increased height could create a perception for park uses of being surrounded by buildings looming over
them, depending on design treatments.There would be increased height and bulk from the perspective
of pedestrians on NE Sunset Boulevard.Thus small adjustments to reduce height and bulk related to the
increased height and intensity of the structures would reduce impacts. Current city design standards
address some aspects of this through standards addressing building modulation and roofline variation;
additional consideration of City design standards regarding upper story setbacks is recommended.
September 2014 22
.
<
�rr �+
ftENT�N SU�:SET C�h�f�Elt�tTY G.REA
REEV,4Lt�ATION AN'e7�`.DDE(��UfN
September 2014 23
RENTQN SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA
REEVALUATION AND ADDENDUM
Exhibit 18. Heights allowed with Conditional Use Permit
Sun�et Terrace Potential Building Envelope Study
� �� _
� Q�e � � �:
� " � � �
i �. ' � � ���� :,�� ,r � , � y �
I . .' 'i au '-�jKa,y� 4- ¢�� , , .�� .
i S � '4� Y F � 4� � Q" ^ � tl7 �
��.
r � '� ' � d� t"�� � „�r,�, � t s'�r,� pe � � ��Et
�� ��� - � � �. #�� i�-;x�a ��'�:: £�� �,''�. e �z���'�`a"A'�� � ;�,.�, . .
� i� i ' � i t , t"s �-ta' "��� �'r�� � � �,,� �.
� R ti r � .t �t �:� �s � .�a,.��,
� ��� � i � �_� � � 't«F' �"'�z'v -� �r �a��r^ 'E 4�tu _ �*''�,�p� *¢'
hx P t r'�ir;4�- �i{r. �`� ��x ��+r�`,��,�� �`ha Sy���r"#^�"� �' '+�r�,,. `3� �i I
J ,�4 wyk��t.�&..� ,� l Sp�,3.G �.a �.7 s,r'�N�'� � � �ar � '�! . �
�� �� ��t�` t r ` � j�}��"�i�i#��.� sy�3y�. �a��� ��c�f�x�i�y�}�,. �*}w�F+R��� ��"�,+ 1� y�,^� ai�'�'�,. �� � r '�; ���
I wy. �,'�r.iao.��:.i �,-Sw'nP�$��y ri '�+k� ���.,.�����'� ��s3n�,a�wsk�����ri,i ,'r�'.��r6�`,'�,"�v,GY�'`�� '" Y �. �t r ^.:° ! _' ' 1
�"`�� � �� ���;s�� rh �,3� �n '�'����'�'�`�`" a.'�'�'°M��.�WF11�t5RHG'�f5�5 pA����-�%bmw`"`��:y4 c��, �,7� .•� ,r.;�sxt�����,�a� '�t'=.,��. I
Y� a 7 x . �-x�ri�; 'e� �,�'.�'�+ dr� .� 4 .p� fs a � .Su 1 �v +pY ! t �1
. �`".°,re" ,���,i'' '��.���k�z�,'°xa,4��ay4�v�4'14'f�:`^�x a'l�e1n, ���.k'n ��e.+c�yMbg':� ,�,�,t.p�y�^i,� .2�:� � d.y�ti•,f,a{1����� Y'�Fa��,"'�.�� � �����44:w.. � ,::a
t, �.,i#� �r .. v��""'�"�F qS ��y ��µa�r�`:i.}3s� "}+�'�p°�k°,,xr�r'��,��"�',� �"'� `�'�w�g�'F,�'��tL ��+�..t�,t�•".��N � z �Sa . � ,.
'.j�.: "�N , ��..'I ���,:F�, � ,�a�+�r 4�,� r p s� 57�3 a�yir������}A�� e;� l'���,�;'9:i�.� ��c�„� `�,*�'.g}�,,.;a�'�,�i' ,��1�k��y.ta��...;-�a�. � �`Y:rp,'.� ,..x��y""'�.��
Mf � '-� '�i�r � y ...$�"`��F y�' `� �} G a t.�4r-+'.y����w`.�Y� r�"5�r R�,���,�1�.'r y 'i4 t 'T'"T�'�.+€ #���''i� +e �,��� ��:ti;;�i
(�1� �� � S xM rl�S'd4 q�$�s.� d9 � S""''�tt"i`t�p�t���{ �E r'`i�i �srS;4�k```�.F � .+ ��s.Kh i �' 4�� P..
{ft :"� � 4 � a. a� c � rit , �+� pj�''�+�nz��`���"'Sa,���,�'�.w�t�-��s .��,� st£�„? � i n. ��,.. .
�^'�. ( � ;k 1§ � �yt��� �� h,r yze�� {�aeg� ��ks� M^�r�7�4 �''�� r b'` fi�r �� .3 ���k'� �i1 4 th� 3 (�y�` �i 1�u �`.., � �.
,�� ,�� k.� ^y'.) ,� t. t �„�,F�+'� f"�.k.�.}� �vcK;;,t�ro�} �� !� �, � �,n ��a�'��"�'�'�,k` ^pr ��
' . �t t eY .� �tr d'���- +� t @
�� � I �1a50! S k vkS' SY f 7 Y'a+n 1 �'Y `R t , R ! N �k'��G� _)p
�; F' 1 < � �.Y i r'�irt�1�'i 1 1+.;�4 J k `�n g 4x �'r �' � ��`, i� � . )3, ��I
,...; ^S , .x-F,:��e�y��rfi��t.�������,�°s��#1'p?��, �s `y����si�.u�i�j�x��"�q� "��». S ;�
� �i,,� �_�' �,�� ' ' rf
�`i ,r x,n t•� ��'�,E}"�p��,(.4't'� r .t,� _ .� rf},iy F ,i ra�,r� .!
�
��� `,�i?t. III' : pq�01 �f ��. .
r� � �� � �I'�''��'' �9N��� � � . .,ati ,:q .
y ' y� I� �� � ,sm
, � `. � �
,� � c a �� S �" i7 �.''� �Rf��, gV�9W� rre �r � �4�p ;� i ��.
'�� € t y, � � � UNSE .: '. � ,�;�- x P ��
f �'- � r� � x rF rglVpNf(SH&pp� r '"r ..
t d. � o( '^. . � .h �� �,�.? � i
..� 1 3'�,h�,G.�:G Rf'��'7F pe t.5 3
R � � II � �� I �
� 4 ' � W � . �.�i, a��.f a�fi .� ?t�# � �'
� h�Z�d' . .. ( i k, * py �
;� ,( � .�tq,4 :t t�a� .. ,y,�� �. �� �' { . "� r a�i'�N Y �.m s rp�'� �` c �o;�
�y�u .r i Lfi' ��t t �.,�t ,.h� c . ., � ���' ''Nr4 �t, . - i� 45 °'v„Cy � "�'' .4ry�'�; �
e i � � � ,�� d��r��,�.� � # a , p
„ � 1.��+V' .^ '�'1��.�' . �°� yp.,t''��t1�P��,�^� � ;�r�d�'+t r �5.s i.r^'i,at' ,_,y� � y
ti L,. A � � $ a +"' wh ',,. �a. �
I � ��,'�. ' �'3 Ik �n�'� �^r«�� � � ��c� ,q ��w' '��' � �"y � y�a' �
�n C v 4 ��jj � ��' o- i r' sy G �
k �; .,�i v x ua�rTac+:uaa �� .�� � �. � �t.� �'"" t,� '' ,� ° '
[JISGUI/MEFTM"auuuANieleon.Iqi�CsrMefhEpqskfAkme+inwtnvNumelricoapacdy.or �d� � � �kn�. n e .�. � In,;. a�: '
� n F t. i �� � , '� ;
huudmgenvelqbe,IhafmuldbeeUOWedbB&doneMs��ngendplM?sedzoninppesmePen y` , t �'H� y .. �,��; y,.„�.
ihe pu7�ose o/fWs wauaN:ali[v�Is Io faNklale aa5essnxiF oP the I�eraM.arrd bulN nry�acts �a '. t ` � � ��-'�+ �4
i
Mfllepo(enfialmaarmuMtlevifldy.+menf.fldavi.�w+!@afrrnisirolinfentletllosi,�jr,)rsiurtan 'a {�`�"'�_ i'(�'e� y ,,,} ���� q "
z , , ,..
de5yn ol rk4elOpnxM FNq7osSls/N�ecd�c pArcelc a kv fhe areA. ' g�� ° '''p ." ` ^ ' . *:. . ' � ' - ... ... �
NpS� . .. : .'il�.31kh'� A�a ^�'�r�,; :. �. ._.
Puyus115.2014 MITHUN
Prepared by:Mithun
September 2014 Z4 .
.
RENTQN SUNSET COMMUNITY AREA =
RE�VALUATION AND ADDENDUM
�
�
September 2014 Z5 I
'�', ''�✓ ,
REtv[CN SU!`:SET C�f�rt�ll€NE r Y,4r?EA
REEVALLATI�N At�D AD�EN€?U[t'f
.�`.�4d��e+:'v G:!€`�F �`i���-"�`reF - �
While the Reevaluation Alternative would introduce greater building heights in the Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Area, the incremental effect on shading conditions would be minor. The nearby
pedestrian areas are aiready likely to experience some moderate shading from buildings and street trees
under Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative, as described in the NEPA/SEPA EIS.
Increased height on Sites D, H, I, and J at the southern and western end of the Redevelopment Area
would have the potential to slightly increase the length of shadows cast on the interior park to the
north. However, reconfiguration of the park to increase its size as part of the updated Master Site Plan
process would ameliorate this to some degree, and the application of design standards would further
reduce shading impact from increased building height.
.�`E._���t,r•;e� �4k���t�Cc�
g".�E:;`E' `'E°c:�� �'C:e'1 �'�e�:�'ic�
� The Reevaluation Alternative provides for a larger park space than originally proposed with the
Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 in the FEIS.
�; �.+=� u�.=j�4 4t`;_
All development under the Reevaluation Alternative will be required to comply with adopted City of
Renton development regulations, as described in the FEIS, including standards regarding site design,
open space, residential design, pedestrian amenities, architectural features, and exterior lighting. Of
particular relevance to the proposed height increase is RMC 4-3-100E.1.
RMC 4-3-100E.1,Transition to Surrounding Development, requires:
At least one of the following design elements sha!!be used to promote a transition to surrounding uses:
1. Building proportions, including step-backs on upper levels in accordance with the surrounding planned
and exrsting land use forms;or
2. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into sma!!er increments;or
3. Roof/ines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent 6ulk and transition with existing
development.
Additionally, the Administraror may require increased setbacks at the side or rear of a buifding in order to
reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting
yards."
Based on this reevaluation,this analysis recommends application of items 1 and 3. Application of these
recommendations would be considered during the height-based conditional use permit review and
during future detailed Site Plan Review.
�.� �B"a€"1�;:�'G�'���EC��
Based on the results of the traffic analysis,the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to operate similarly
to the FEIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3. The intersection LOS at each study location is
expected to be the same between each of the alternatives, in both 2015 and 2030.The average vehicle
delay difference at most of the study intersections in the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to be
negligible compared to the delay with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative. Similar mitigation
measures as identified in the FEIS would still be required.See Attachment B.
September 2014 26
«
. � W.rrw
RE(d30N SUl115ET COM(VII.;hfTY Ar^�EA
RcEVALU�.Tlt'�h�4f�l��DDERDUfVf
�.� �`�€��5�
There is no change in the overall neighborhood growth and therefore no change in projected traffic
volumes and associated noise from the prior 2011 FEIS.As the Reevaluation Alternative makes some site
plan changes (e.g. different arrangement of market rate and affordable units), setbacks of buildings
from the future SR 900 improvement boundaries are less than for the FEIS Preferred Alternative; the
Master Plan continues to encircle the park with buildings. A review of recommended noise mitigation _
measures is provided in Attachment C. Based on the Reevaluation Alternative and the mitigation
measures from the FEIS,where applicable,there are no changes to conclusions about impacts.
�.� ����:s ��€� �x�er�����F�
Since the time of the FEIS,the City has adopted a Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan and modified
its level of service (LOS) standards. Based on an ESRI demographic summary of the Renton Sunset area
of nearly 0.44 square miles,the average household size in 2010 was shown at 2.40. Applying this to the
proposed net increase in dwellings of 554 dwellings in the Sunset Terrace the population would equal
nearly 1,330 persons. The City's developed park standard is 1 acre of parkland per 200 people which
would mean the area considered in isolation from the rest of the neighborhood (not necessarily the
intent of the citywide parks plan) would produce a demand for 6.7 acres of developed parks. There are
additional standards for natural areas that are not necessarily intended to be applied in an urban setting
absent critical areas.
While the proposed Sunset Park is less than 6.6 acres, it is at 3.2 acres in the Reevaluation Alternative,
which is the largest public space considered compared to FEIS alternatives. Further, if the full City
standard were applied on this site,the park space would essentially take up nearly all of the original 73
acres of the Sunset Terrace public housing site,also not intended by City plans.
In sum, the results of the FEIS Selected Alternatives apply to the Reevaluation alternative, as follows,
except that the Reevaluation Alternative reduces the potential under-serving of the area with City parks:
• Similar to Alternative 3,without additional park and recreation facilities added to the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea,the forecast population in this subarea would remain
underserved with respect to parks and recreation facilities. However, under the Preferred
Alternative and the Reevaluation Alternotive,Sunset Court Park would be relocated to the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.Additionally,this park would be expanded from 0.5 acre to
2.65 acres under the Preferred Alternative and would be even larger under the Reevaluation
Alternative at 3.2 acres.This would increase the acreage in neighborhood parkland for this subarea
and the Planned Action Study Area.
• Similar to Alternative 3,NE Sunset Boulevard would be improved to include bike lanes, intersection
improvements,and sidewalks, providing a more walkable corridor and more direct access route
between residential areas and parkland.
• Under the Preferred Alternative and i-he Reevaluation Alternative,the Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea would be underserved,according to the results when applying the City's
parks and recreation LOS standards.
• Stormwater elements would be incorporated into park and recreation facilities within the Planned
Action Study Area under the Preferred Alternative.See the water resources analysis (Final EIS
Section 33)for a discussion of combining facilities. However,stormwater management facilities
cannot be counted toward park/recreation acreage for purposes of ineeting park LOS.
September 2014 27
� � f
REt�TQf�StlNSET CO:��Ih�l�h![TY�.RE,4
REEVALU+r+Tl�hl�`c(�D k`�'��Jc�v'DUf��i
Some original mitigation measures addressed in the FEIS and resulting ROD have been implemented
previously to reduce impacts,including:
• A new Parks, Recreation,Open Space and Natural Resources Plan addressing parks and recreation
services citywide.
• The City adopted amendments to its development codes that would provide for payment of a fee-
in-lieu for required common open space.
Other mitigation measures identified in the FEIS would still be applicable broadly in the neighborhood
benefiting the study area:
• The City and Renton School District could develop a joint-use agreement for public use of school
grounds for parks and recreation purposes during non-school hours.Joint-use agreements between
the City and Renton School District could also be used to,at least partially, address the LOS
deficiencies in existing recreation facilities.
• The City could add parks and recreation facilities such as
o The City could convert current public properties no longer needed for their current uses to parks
and recreation uses,such as the Highlands Library that is intending to move and expand off site.
Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows properties in public use.
o The City could purchase private property for parks and recreation use.An efFicient means would be
to consider properties in the vicinity of existing parks and recreation facilities or where additional
population growth would be greatest. Draft EIS Figure 4.15-2 shows locations where future demand
could be greater and where the City could focus acquisition efForts.
�E� �rr�.�[� ��i:°:���
The overall conclusions of the FEIS for Selected Alternatives is expected to be similar for the
Reevaluation Alternative, except that patterns of growth and demand may shift somewhat to have
slightly greater need in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Area and slightly less in the overall
neighborhood:
• The Renton Police Department could experience an increase in calls for service related to
construction site theft,vandalism,or trespassing relating to construction.
• Construction impacts on fire protection and emergency medical services could include increased
calls for service related to inspection of construction sites and potential construction-related
injuries.
� There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to health care services
during infrastructure construction (e.g.,NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be
established.
• There may be temporary changes to nonmotorized and motorized access to social services during
infrastructure construction (e.g., NE Sunset Boulevard), but alternative routes would be established.
• Redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace housing development would displace the existing on-site
community meeting space that is currently used for on-site social service programs. However,the
space would be replaced onsite or nearby with a larger and more modern facility,and with
appropriate phasing of development,disruption to on-site social service programs can be minimized
or avoided.
• Selected Sunset Area Alternatives would result in construction-related waste generation.
September 2014 28
. _ __ _ .. _ _ __ . _
__ __ _ _ _ _
. _ _ __.
� `�+' �rr�
RE1vTON�UNSET CONiMCEh(fTY,4REQ
REEVALUATipN At�D�DQEN�Ut�t
� When the library is relocated,library services may be temporarily unavailable in the study area, but
services would be available at other branches.
The FEIS identified specific demand ratios for all of the above services and calculated the number of
personnel, space, etc. that would result from the growth in the neighborhood as a whole and in the
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea. There would be an increase in dwellings and
population in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but no change to the growth in
overall neighborhood dwellings and population, under the Reevaluation Alternative. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the share of demand for services and space would slightly increase in the Potential
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole. No significantly
different impacts would occur and FEIS mitigation measures are still applicable.
�.� �.���[��i��
�������9
A conceptual water main improvements layout for the proposed developments identified in the
conceptual master plan is presented in Exhibit 19. For this portion of the Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
area, the diagram updates the information contained in the Final EIS but is intended to meet City
standards as described in the Final EIS.
The City will require 12-inch water mains in all new public streets (Harrington Avenue NE, Sunset Lane
NE, NE 10`h Street, Glennwood Avenue NE) to provide the estimated fire flow demand ranging from
3,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 4,000 gpm based on the City Fire Prevention's review of various pre-
application submittals.
Portions of the water mains in SR 900 were installed by prior projects in the area.
The section of the 12-inch main in Harrington Ave between Glennwood Avenue NE and NE 10th street
will be installed by the City in 2014 as part of the Harrington Ave Green Connection stormwater and
water improvements project. Another section will be installed by the KCLS library project in NE lOtn
Street and in Sunset Lane NE up to the west property line of the KCLS project.
A developer's extension of the section of 12-inch water main in SR 900 will be required to be a looped
water system because the estimated fire flow demand for the proposed development on sites 6/7 and
on site 7/8 is above 2,500 gpm.
The location of the new water main in SR 900 west of Harrington, whether it will be installed in the
existing roadway pavement or in the future unimproved right-of-way must be carefully evaluated as part
of the pre-design/design of the roadway improvements projects, and consider the need to
accommodate existing and future public and private utilities, rockery/retaining walls,street trees,etc.
Adequate horizontal separation (5-ft minimum and up to 10-feet) must be provided between the new
water main and other utilities,structures, or trees. .
September 2014 29
�
�� � �
RENTON SUNSET COfVtJilEf�fTY AREA
REEV�LJ�TION A[�D C,��rf�Dtl�Jl
Exhibit 19.Water Main Improvements
i Con:epWal Walermain Improvemerns Layout �
, or Conceptual Master Plan Projec[
' ' Renton Sunset Terra:.E RedevalcpmeY
�. '' ey Amom c,nio��-cm oi Remo�waxr emr.w�pe�.anvu .
i I ! EXlST.6-INCH
WATERMAINS
,__` �. `_T --� - ,--
N� f2'�"' r-�f. T
---! -- --- ----� � -- --
i
EXIST.12-INCH �
` WATERMAINS
f
I —- X( I
� � � _I �
t
� `
� � �
�.z I 2 � �� I
{ • ' ° �� . ,�
�Im - ;
i� - � � � �_ � ' ' NELN 12-IMCH WP.TERMAIN
; � � (by C��'s Hamngton Ave Project
y : � ir Summer/Fall 2J7d) �
� � �— (�q` � �
� �.
LLR I F1rh-+ '� �`> J_
\1 I� � � Y }
.� � !� , n �
l t � " ��
�
, . � � , ;
�' � � �� "4� ; �; �4 � � � ' �:
� �
� �; , ��.� „ �i� �'
���, �' �`�'. � �a,israz . ,
r�"ry ", ` , � - �, �
���� �I t�y ' �� F'ORTION OF
�� \i� /
j 5 % y. WhTERMRIN TD
���, � j� `��-° BE INSTALLED BY :
�, � % ,� -.� KCLSPRO.IECT �2
. _
. � � . K� �� � :
I „� � _� �' �-+ y �''� �,. ,�
,�p , �� �
� � � ' , �� �:1 - ,�
�� r � �� �� �'•. .� t�� ' A Y� . `pEIGF�B] � �f ` /
�.,a,y,, PR }'Q
1 "� �,`��?� l FUTURE 12-INCii i - � '
; � '1 �a ' n �� �- WATERfJu11NS �
� "� • `' �i - '..(BY 6EVELOPERS) ,�r�� ��''�"�
I _ ;r;
!
___1 ��'•.� _�: .�' � _ \/� �c �`�'�`
,� ' / � ``�.\
� \ �� ' - s� Lk �{�
R �i
,`,..- ` — � j' ,-
FUTURE 12-INCH 1NATERf�7AIN "� "
(8Y DEVELOPERS) � �
Looped v+atermainfs)req�ired �, � ,. �f8- ��� ���
i �
te�suse fireflaw demand ezceeds .�"' .•� - -� EXIST.12-INCH �
2.50GGPM ' �� `�, � �.7�
WATERMAINS
ss ca.uwwrr � ; � " �._ �
--StTEMEA. ��,�v'� � w
J � ` �'.\� '',�.
.—� _;-,,,_ �'—�._.___-- �
N � . � � �l: r:,
RFN7GM SlA1S£�ARLAIASP ��=�• 4• �
7 -— .. _.. .. __ .___T�'-------�--......
F��'��
0' 100' 2U0' 3U0' 40C
Note: See Exhibit for approved Master Plan.While the Master Plan has been updated since the above base map was
prepared,the concept for water mains remains intact.
`��`��ir.�sa�°
Sites plans will be required to show the location of the existing sewer system in order to determine the
potential re-use of existing sewer (conditioned on lining the existing sewer mains and manholes)_
provided the location does not interfere with the ultimate roadway/building alignments.
September 2014 30
� •
wr� w�"
RENTON SUf�SET CGt�NEUNITYAREA
REEVALUATI�N A!!D R�DE�DUFJI
Where a sewer main exists in the current Harrington Av NE alignment that will become the new park it
will be retained; the City will eliminate manholes where needed and where feasible. The park
connection is likely to occur at NE 10th, or at the west end, where new private development may be
able to can shorten the existing sewer to keep it within the roadway.
Where the section of Glenwood Avenue NE reconnects with Harrington Avenue NE the sewer main will
need to be rerouted.
Approved plans indicate the Library will connect to the existing sewer in NE lOth Street.
�. "`���'� ������€'�^a
.� ����,�i �"��
Generally, regarding natural environment topics(earth, air quality,water resources, plants and animals),
there are no anticipated changes to overall conclusions or mitigation measures identified in the ROD and
Planned Action EIS since the proposed mixed use development activities are essentially occurring within
the same footprint and the impervious estimates in the FEIS and ROD are meintained.
Conditions, mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding Environmental Health and Historic/Cultural
Features are likewise unchanged. No environmental health conditions or cultural resources features are
known in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but in case such features are uncovered
mitigation measures would apply.
Built environment topics that are more suited to analysis under cumulative growth conditions include air
quality and energy. The level of potential greenhouse gas emissions and energy use may be slightly
higher in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, but not in the neighborhood as a whole,
and overall FEIS conclusions and mitigation measures are still applicable.
Last, regarding socio-economics, housing, and environmental justice, it is anticipated that the overall
conditions and impacts regarding the potential for change in the neighborhood, need for relocation
assistance, etc. identified in the FEIS are still valid, as the study area would still redevelop from present
conditions to a mixed use, amenity-rich environment.
•�'o� l d:4J��i�1H`��:E� r�,� ��r�r,�+�tF
§ t
The Planned Action Ordinance includes monitoring and review measures to be considered within five
years of the ordinance adoption with some measures considered at the time of a NEPA Reevaluation
(compliance with neighborhood goals and Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design rating system
for Neighborhood Development [LEED-ND] criteria or equivalent), though monitoring and review are
directed to the Planned Action area as a whole. The City has not reached a 5 year milestone (based on
effective date in 2011 would occur in 2016);the evaluation would be extended to 5-years from the new
effective date of the ordinance. At that point more development in the area would have occurred and
there would be results to monitor.
Nevertheless, this Reevaluation provides a review of the Planned Action Study Area Goals and
Objectives and to the LEED-ND criteria in relation to the Reevaluation Alternative to contribute to the
City's future 5-year review effort. See Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 21. In general,the Reevaluation Alternative
continues to promote a public and private effort to create a mixed use, mixed income neighborhood
supported by park,library,road,and stormwater improvements that increase quality of life.
September 2014 31
_ _ __ � _
� � �
REh i OI�S�NSET COt�ft�u�ITY AREA
REE�lALUATIQN AND�GDEf�DUI44
Exhibit 20. Goals and Objectives Reevaluation
FEIS Goals and Objedives Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea
Transformation of private and public properties in the The Reevaluation Alternative is based on the prior studied
Planned Action Study Area...is expected to meet the Sunset alternatives and continues to promote a mixed income,
Area Community vision,as expressed in the Highlands mixed use development with parks,library,and
Phase II Task Force Recommendations(City of Renton greenstreets to promote an affordable,connected,
2008a)and the CIS(City of Renton 2009b). walkable,and attractive area for residents and businesses.
• The Highlands is a destination for the rest of the city and The proposed park would be larger than prior studied
beyond. alternatives.
. The neighbors and businesses here are engaged and
involved in the community.
. Neighborhood places are interconnected and walkable.
. The neighborhood feels safe and secure.
. Neighborhood growth and development is managed in a
way that preserves quality of life.
. The neighborhood is an attractive place to live and
conduct business.
. The neighborhood is affordable to many incomes.
. The neighborhood celebrates cultural and ethnic
diversity.
For each of the major components of the proposal,the The Planned Action Ordinance,as amended,remains in
following specific goals and objectives were developed to effect The Reevaluation/Addendum demonstrates that the
be consistent with this vision. Planned Action EIS conclusions remain valid.City
1.Through designation of a Planned Action and infrastructure investments for the planned action area
infrastructure investments,support and stimulate public continue.For example,regional stormwater and
and private development greenstreets are expected to be accomplished in earlier
phases.A loop road would be implemented as development
occurs and utilities are extended,with the Library site an
early phase of that investment The proposed park is
enlarged and would be implemented when funding is
secured.
2.Ensure that redevelopment is planned to conform to the The Reevaluarion Alternative furthers the intent of the CV
City's Comprehensive Plan. zone for a mixed use center,providing housing,civic,retail,
and park uses.
3.Through the Planned Action and early environmental See Response to#1.A Demolition and Disposition permit
review,accelerate the transformation of the Potential was obtained for the Library site and a second permit was
Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea with mixed- obtained for the balance of the site.
income housing and mixed uses together with places for
community gathering.This will also be accomplished in
part by using this EIS to achieve a NEPA Record of Decision,
which will enable RHA to submit a HUD Demolition and
Disposition application in 2011.
4.Ensure that the Planned Action covers environmental See Response to#1.The total amount of growCh studied
review of Sunset Area roadway,drainage,parks and across the Planned Action study area remains intact under
recreation,and other infrastructure improvements,and the Reevaluation Alternative,with some redistribution to
analyze impacts of anticipated private development in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.Both
addition to Sunset Terrace. public and private development is promoted in the
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea as well
as the broader neighborhood.
September 2014 3Z
__.
, __ - _ _ _
.
� �
REt�TON SUhSET COMMU(�iTY AREA
REEVALUATION AND�dDERDUC�fl
FEIS Goais and Objectives Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrece
Redevelopment Subarea
5.Build on previous City,RHA,and Renton School District The Reevaluation Alternative continues to further the prior
efforts and current projects.Leverage relationships and planning efforts.The library is under construction.The
partner with existing community outreach activities and parks plan has been adopted,and the subject park site in
resources.Recognize community desires documented in: the subarea is larger than in prior alternatives.The subarea
. Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Area will have a mixed income,mixed use development as
Citizen's Zoning Task Force(City of Renton 2006), anticipated in the Community Inveshnent Sh-ategy.
• Report and Recommendation of the Highlands Phase II Elsewhere in the neighborhood an early childhood
Task Force(City of Renton 2008a), education center has been redeveloped and expanded in
• Highlands Action Plan(City of Renton 2009c), partnership with the School District
• Sunset Area Community Investment Strategy(City of
Renton 2009b),
. Renton Trails and Bicycle Master Plan(City of Renton
2009d),
• Renton Parks,Recreation,Open Space and Natural
Resources Plan(estimated completion date September
2011),
. Utility system plans,and
. Library replacement(in process).
6.Create a Great Street on NE Sunset Boulevard,as The Reevaluation Alternative master plan concept
described in the CIS.Implement the City Complete Streets anticipates and recognizes the multimodal design of NE
policy for the NE Sunset Boulevard corridor and the Sunset Sunset Boulevard by matching the future right of way
Area green connections. Extend conceptual design of boundary studied in the Final EIS.
improvements between the Interstate 405 limited access
right-of-way and Monroe Avenue NE,and include them in
the Planned Action effort
7.Encourage low-impact stormwater management The Reevaluation Alternative would be developed
methods and areawide solutions as part of a master consistent with the Sunset Area drainage plan.Regional
drainage plan to support development stormwater in the central park and greenstreets(e.g.
Harrington Avenue NE)are expected to be accomplished in
earlier phases.
8.Engage the community in a transparent process using The Reevaluation Alternative is similar to prior studied
available outreach opporiuniries and tools successfully alternatives that were developed with public engagement
used in prior planning efforts. opportunities.The proposed Master Plan and Height
Conditional Use applications would be the subject of a
Hearing Examiner public hearing.
9.Optimize funding strategies by leveraging partnerships, The Reevaluation Alternative has resulted from a
innovation and sustainable development for a healthy public/private Master Plan coordination effort See
community.Recognize the importance and timing of response to#1 regarding infrastructure and civic
integrating housing,transportation,infrastructure, investments.
expanded economic opporiunity,parks and recreation,and
the environment
Source:Final EIS,Appendix A,2011;BERK 2014
The official 2009 LEED ND project scorecardz published by the U.S. Green Building Council is used as a
guide to address green design issues in relation to the proposed redevelopment. For each criteria group
on the scorecard, a brief discussion of how the proposed redevelopment is consistent with the principles
of LEED ND is provided in Exhibit 21.
Z See:LEED for Neighborhood Development(LEED-ND),available:http://www.cnu.or�/leednd.Accessed:August 25,2014.
September 2014 33
, _ _.
. _ _
__._. _ _ _ . �
� � 1
EiETvTCJf�5�(�SET C0�{f�UhSETY AREA
t�EEV�LUATI;�N A�D�GL'�l�DUfJI
Exhibit 21. LEED for Neighborhood Development Criteria
Summary of Criteria Reevaluation Alternative:Potential Sunset Terrece
Redevelopment Subarea
The intent of the Smart Location and Linkage criteria of the The Sunset Terrace site is located along a major
LEED ND rating system is to encourage development to transportation and transit corridor within the City of
occur within and near existing communities and Renton. Redevelopment of the site under the Reevaluation
established public transit infrastructure,as well as reduce Alternative would create a mixed-use,mixed-income
vehicle trips. Development in smart locations also development already served by the full range of public
encourages a greater degree of walldng of bicycling,which senrices on a previously developed infill site on a major .
has personal health benefits. transit corridor-a"smart location." The Reevaluation
Alternative master plan concept anticipates and recognizes
the multimodal design of NE Sunset Boulevard by matching
the future right of way boundary studied in the Final EIS.
The intent of the Neighborhood Pattern and Design criteria The Reevaluation Alternative furthers the intent of the CV
of the LEED ND rahng system is to promote safe,diverse, zone for a mixed use center,providing housing,civic,retail,
walkable,compact neighborhoods with high-quality design and park uses.The neighborhood is compact,and furthers
with a mix of land uses. walkability and quality design with a loop road,
greenstreets,and a new park and library.
The intent of the Green Infrastructure and Buildings The Reevaluation Alternative would implement Final EIS
criteria is to encourage development that implements mitigation measures and retain green features of prior
green building practices or introduces green infrastructure. studied alternatives,including:
This includes using certified green building techniques, . Construction Emission Control:The Final E[S
increasing building water and energy efficiency,controlling recommends that the City require all construction
pollution from construction activities,implementing contractors to implement air quality control plans for
adaptive reuse of historic buildings,and using green construction activities in the study area,including
methods of stormwater management measures for reducing engine emissions and fugitive
dust
• Green Connections for Stormwater Management The
Reevaluation Alternative would include public •
investment in Green Connections,a regional stormwater
facility,and would comply with a drainage master plan
for the study area
• Energy Efficiency:The Final EIS recommends that the
City encourage or require implementation of energy and
greenhouse gas reduction measures in the study area
such as compliance with the Northwest ENERGY STAR
Homes program and the Seattle Energy Code for non-
residential buildings.
Source:Final EIS,Appendix A,2011;BERK 2014
� e:v
.� �����4��'�€�.i��
The City of Renton (City) is the Responsible Entity and lead agency for NEPA purposes. In accordance
with specific statutory authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's)
regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 58, the City is authorized to assume
responsibility for environmental review,decision-making,and action that would otherwise apply to HUD
under NEPA. Additionally, the City is the proponent of the broader Planned Action for the Sunset area
which has had environmental review under Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Revised
Code of Washington [RCW]43.21C).
The City has performed joint NEPA/SEPA environmental review in cooperation with the Recipient, the
Renton Housing Authority (RHA). Accordingly, the City prepared a Draft and Final EIS to analyze
potential impacts of redevelopment of the Sunset Terrace public housing community. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)supporting both milestones was issued April 1, 2011.
September 2014 34
.
.. �' �
RENTf3N SUfvSET CGA�M;�F�€TY AREA
REEYALI��Tf�?N�.C�D�.CtDE.h�DUtvS
The City initiated consultation with agencies and tribes regarding permit requirements and to identify
any areas of concerns regarding the Sunset Terrace public housing redevelopment as well as the overall
Planned Action. Federal and state agencies were notified of comment opportunities through the scoping
process and were offered comment opportunity on the Draft EIS. Two agencies were particularly
consulted consistent with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106), and the
Endangered Species Act(Section 7). As documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record,the
City received a letter of concurrence from NMFS in May 2011. The Biological Assessment and NMFS
memoranda are included in the Environmental Review Record. The City also completed Section 106
consultation for Sunset Terrace redevelopment and all properties fronting NE Sunset Boulevard as
documented in the ROD and Environmental Review Record. In addition, consistent with the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act, the City received a letter of consistency from the State of Washington
Department of Ecology(16 U.S.C. 1451-1464).
In May 2011,the City of Renton completed a ROD in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act,and a Planned Action Ordinance in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
The ROD and Planned Action. Ordinance identified mitigation measures from the FEIS. The ROD
concluded that "With the application of City-adopted development regulations and recommended
mitigation measures, and application of other federal and state requirements, no significant
unavoidable adverse impacts are anticipated. Pursuant to 40 CFR 1505.3, this decision to proceed with
Sunset Terrace and actions in the broader area will be implemented and mitigation measures imposed
through appropriate conditions in any land use or related permits or approvals issued by the City of
Renton and through conditions of federal funding." This Reevaluation and Addendum maintains the
mitigation measures from the ROD and Planned Action and identifies where the application of such
mitigation measures (e.g. design guidelines) is particularly relevant and could be included in permit
conditions.
The City finds by this re-evaluation, after considering the effects of the revised Master Plan and existing
and supplemental environmental documentation, that no substantive change to the findings in the
Record of Decision would occur.The Sunset Area Community Planned Action NEPA/SEPA EIS adequately
examines the impacts of the overall project, and the proposed changes in the Master Plan would not
result in modification to those conclusions. No new or significantly different impacts to the environment
would occur. Mitigation measures incorporated in the proposal and identified in the EIS, and additional
consultation and mitigation documented in the Record of Decision, represent reasonable steps to
reduce adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. Together, these measures and would
reduce effects to acceptable levels. No additional mitigation is warranted as a result of changes
proposed in the Master Plan. �
September 2014 35
� . � 9
E2EhTON SU�'SET CQIV�NEUNtTY RRE.4
�EEV�LUATIC3N Af�D fi�aDEhIQU(Vt
^�r_�.,:`'S;.i�"s'a ��_..St�F 4CS:€[��`["°'�t���.�E`��_.
City of Renton Environmental Review Committee(ERC)
Date: Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
Signature:
September 2014 36
s
�
ATTACHMENT A: RENTON SUNSET TERRACE REDEVELOPMENT: PARKING ANALYSIS
Building Name Total Res Total Use Proposed Parking Totai Proposed Zoning Renton Municipal Code: Use/ Min-Max af City Min for City Max Additional
Units: Proposed Spacesfor Use Parking Spaces Required Spaces Use for Use Parking
Orig Units with Type(Orig for Project Needed
Proposal Reevaluation Proposal) beyond
Proposal
Sunset Terrace Site 5 41 54 Residential(low income) 41 41 CV low fncome .25-1J5 per DU 13.5 94.5
' � ` Allowed Han et ` 13S 94'.5 None �
Sunset Terrace Site 6/7 104 310 Residential 190 190 CV Attached dwellings within all other zones/ 1 110 192.5
-1.75 per DU
` � �T. AllowedRange: .. .�' ' 130 � 192.5� None
Sunset Terrace Site 7/8 188 196 Residential 271 t271 CV Attached dwellfngs within all other zones/ 1 196 343
-1.75 per DU
� . . ..__,- - - � m.. ,.,
AIIowAdAanget� , ---�' `` 196 ` 34#��' None
Sunset Terrace Site 9/10 331 117 Library(15,000 sq ft) S3 , iBZ � CV cultural:4 per 3000 sf 60 60
Commercial(4,489 sq ft) 11 Retail(2.5 stall/1,000 sq ft),Services(3/1D00 11 11
sq ft),orflce(i/i000 s ft�
Residentlal 111 Attached dwellings within all other zones/ 1 117 205
-1.75 per DU
{'•�;�Allowe�Range-'�;�, �:'1$9"� `'276'�.;` Need6
Sunset Terroce Site 11 56 57 Residential(low-income) ' Sl CV low income .25-1.75 per DU 14.25 98
.,. ..-; .
Allowed Range: ` " 14.25 98 ''' None
Sunset Terrace Site 16/17 10 10 Residential: 3-bedroom 10 >10 R-14 low income .25-1.75 per DU 25 17.5
townhomes
_ . _�.... . _.. ,
Allowed Nange: 2.5 17.5 ' None
�
Reevaluatlon:5eptember2014 � 1
.
;� '� ,
CH2I�HILL SUNSETAREA COMMUNITY PLANNED ACTION UPDATE:
Sunset Area Community Planned Action Update:
Traffic Analysis Results - May 2014 Redevelopment
Master Site Plan Alternative
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides traffic analysis results for the May 2014 Redevelopment Master
Site Plan Alternative,or Reevaluation Alternative,of the Sunset Area Community Planned
Action,and compares these results with operations for Alternative 3 and the Preferred
Alternative as documented in the Final NEPA/SEPA EIS.
Compared to Alternative 3,the Reevaluation Alternarive includes a maximum of 90 additional
units in the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.These 90 additional units are
shifted out of the North,South,and Sunset Mixed Use areas of the Planned Action study area.
This analysis focuses on the intersection operations expected as a result of this shift
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Trips generated by Alternative 3 and the Preferred Alternative in the Planned Action study area
were estimated using the City's version of the PSRC regional travel forecasting model with
applied future-year proposed land uses.The Alternative 3 traffic volumes,as analyzed in the
Final NEPA/SEPA EIS,were used as a base to develop the Reevaluation Alternative volumes.
Trips generated by the 90 additional units were removed from the North,South,and Sunset
Mixed Use areas,and re-routed to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Assuming the
90 shifted housing units consist of inedium to high density low-rise apartment dwellings,
approximately 61 trips�would be generated during the weekday PM peak hour.(Source:
Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition,Institute of
Transportation Engineers.)
Approximately half of the units (47 units)would be shifted from the North subarea,37 percent
(33 units)would be shifted from the South subarea,and the remaining 11 percent(10 units)
would come from the northeast end of the Sunset Mixed Use subarea.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
Traffic analysis results were calculated for the PM peak hour for the years 2015 and 2030.In
general,future traffic patterns in the Reevaluation Alternative would differ slightly from both
the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3.
�These would be new trips to the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment area,but shifted from other areas of the Planned
Action neighborhood.
1
. _ _
9
�+�.r '�+`
On eastbound NE Sunset Boulevard fewer trips would turn left at Kirkland Avenue NE(since
they would no longer be accessing housing units in the North subarea).These trips would likely
turn left onto Harrington Avenue NE or NE 10th Street instead to reach the 90 units that have
shifted into the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
Fewer trips on southbound Edmonds Avenue NE would turn left to eastbound NE 12th Street,
and would instead be likely to continue south to NE Sunset Boulevard.At NE Sunset Boulevard,
these vehicles would turn left and continue to Harrington Avenue NE or NE 10th Street to reach
the housing units.
As a result of the shift in units from the South subarea,fewer trips would turn right from
eastbound NE Sunset Boulevard to Edmonds Avenue NE,Harrington Avenue NE,or NE 10th
Street Instead,these trips would likely turn left at Harrington Avenue NE or NE 10th Street
from NE Sunset Boulevard.
Traffic operations for the Reevaluation Alternative are analyzed assuming the same signal
timing as currently employed by the City.This existing signal timing and phasing provides a
conservative analysis of future operations.The expected operational levels of service(LOS) and
delay results in 2015 with Reevaluation Alternative are compared to the operations results of
the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 in Table 1.Table 2 shows the operational results
comparison for the year 2030.
Table 1.2015 Intersecdon Operations-Alternative 3 Revised[Compared to Preferred
Alternative and Alternative 3)
� . �
Preferred Alt 3 Reevalu-
# Intersection Control Alt ation
Delay Delay Delay
LOS (s) LOS (s) LOS (s)
1 NE Sunset Blvd&NE Park Dr Signalized A 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.3
2 NE Sunset Blvd&Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 12.0 B 12.4 B 12.0
3 NE Sunset Blvd&Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 6.6 A 6.7 A 7.5
4 NE Sunset Blvd&NE lOth St Signalized B 14.6 B 16.2 B 16.3
5 NE Sunset Blvd&Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.3
6 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 12th St Signalized C 24.1 C 24.3 C 24.3
7 NE Sunset Blvd&Monroe Ave NE OWSC B 15.0 B 15.0 B 15.0
8 Edmonds Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC F 54.2 F 55.8 F 54.3
9 Harrington Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC D 34.6 D 35.0 D 32.4
10 Kirkland Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC B 12.8 B 12.8 B 12.6
OWSC=one-way stop control;AWSC=all-way stop control; LOS=1eve1 of service
Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle.
Bold type indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold.
2
i
�
� �
Table 2.2030 Intersection Operations-Alternative 3 Revised(Compared to Preferred
Alternative and Alternative 3)
� � , �
Preferred Alt 3 Reeval-
# Intersection Control Alt uation
Delay Delay Delay
LOS (s) LOS (s) LOS (s)
1 NE Sunset Blvd&NE Park Dr Signalized B 11.5 B 11.9 B 11.9
2 NE Sunset Blvd&Edmonds Ave NE Signalized B 13.7 B 13.7 B 13.6
3 NE Sunset Blvd&Harrington Ave NE Signalized A 8.2 A 8.3 A 8.7
4 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 10th St Signalized C 20.2 C 20.6 C 20.5
5 NE Sunset Blvd&Kirkland Ave NE OWSC B 11.0 B 11.1 B 11.1
6 NE Sunset Blvd&NE 12th St Signalized D 36.9 D 38.8 D 38.9
7 NE Sunset Blvd&Monroe Ave NE OWSC C 15.6 C 15.6 C 15.6
8 Edmonds Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC F 96.3 F 99.6 F 97.4
9 Harrington Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC F 67.1 F 68.9 F 64.8
10 Kirkland Ave NE&NE 12th St AWSC B 14.2 B 14.4 B 14.0
OWSC=one-way stop control;AWSC=all-way stop control; LOS=1eve1 of service
Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle.
Bold rype indicates results worse than City LOS D threshold.
Based on the results of the traffic analysis,the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to operate
similarly to the Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3.
The intersection LOS at each study location is expected to be the same between each of the
alternatives,in both 2015 and 2030.The average vehicle delay difference at most of the study
intersections in the Reevaluation Alternative is expected to be negligible compared to the delay
with Alternative 3 or the Preferred Alternative.
At the stop-controlled intersection of NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE,the average
vehicle delay with Reevaluation Alternative is slightly better than the delay in Alternative 3 but
slightly worse than with the Preferred Alternative.This nominal improvement over Alterpative
3 would not affect the LOS F condition,but would reduce the average delay per vehicle by
approximately 2 seconds.This slight reduction is likely due to fewer vehicles making left turns
at this location.Trips generated by the 90 shifted units would likely access the Potential Sunset
Terrace Redevelopment Subarea directly from NE Sunset Boulevard,and would no longer have
to travel through the intersection at NE 12th Street and Edmonds Avenue NE to reach their
destination.
The stop-controlled intersection of NE 12�'Street and Harrington Avenue NE would operate at
LOS F in each alternative in 2030 but would experience minor delay improvements with
3
__ _ _ _
+r . _ _
•
�r ""�+1+`
Reevaluation Alternative compared to Alternative 3 (approximately 4 seconds per vehicle) and
the Preferred Alternative(approximately 2 seconds per vehicle on average).Due to the shift in
housing units from the north,fewer trips would travel through the NE 12�'Street at Harrington
Avenue NE intersection,which reduces the overall delay,because they would likely remain on
NE Sunset Boulevard to access their destination.
Vehicles accessing the 90 additional housing units in the Potenrial Sunset Terrace
Redevelopment Subarea would likely come from both directions of NE Sunset Boulevard.
Harrington Avenue NE and NE lOth Street would provide direct access to these units;therefore
both these intersections on NE Sunset Boulevard would experience slightly higher turning
traffic volumes in Reevaluation Alternative compared to Alternative 3 and the Preferred
Alternative.
The increase in vehicle demand is not expected to affect the LOS in Reevaluation Alternative
compared to Alternative 3;both intersections are expected to operate at LOS B or better in both
horizon years.The additional vehicles are not expected to significantly worsen the average
delay per vehicle since both locations are signalized and are expected to have ample capacity to
accommodate increases in vehicle demand resulting from 90 additional housing units.
The mitigation measures identified in the ROD would still be appropriate,as follows:
a
_ t
� � �
Table 28. Transportation Mitigation Measures
Potenrial SunsetTerrace Redevelopment
Planned Action Study Area Subarea
Operational Mitigation No permanent mitigation measures are
Planned Action applicants shall pay a Transportation recommended within Potential Sunset Tenace
Impact Fee as determined by the Renton Municipal Redevelopment Subarea.The intersection
Code at the time of payment,payable to the City as operations under action alternadves are
specified in the Renton Municipal Code. expected to be within the LOS D threshold.
Planned Action applicants shall provide a traffic During construction,mitigation measures are
analysis estimating trips generated by their those described for the Planned Action Study
proposed development and demonstrate Area.Flaggers,advance warning signage to
conformance with the Planned Action Ordinance trip alert motorists of detours or closures,and
ranges and thresholds in Section 3(d) (4)as well as reduced speed zones would likely benefit
demonstrate conformance with the City's traffic operarions.
concurrency requirements in RMC 4-6-070. When
demonstrated by an applicant's analysis that
operational LOS standards reviewed in the EIS are
exceeded at the following locations,intersection
improvements shall be made by planned action
applicants as appropriate to meet LOS D and in
conformance with the City's street standards in RMC
4-6-060:
. Edmonds Avenue NE and NE 12th Street:an
additional southbound left-turn pocket and
westbound right-turn pocket would improve
operations to LOS E,while added pedestrian-and
bicycle-oriented paths or multi-use trails to
encourage mode shifts would likely improve
operations to LOS D.
. At the Harrington Avenue NE and NE 12th Street
intersection:the eastbound and westbound
approaches could be restriped to increase the
number of lanes and,therefore,the capacity of the
intersection.With implementation,this
intersection would improve to LOS D.
Construction Mitigation
Temporary mitigation during construction may be
necessary to ensure safe travel and manage traffic
delays.The following mitigation measures shall be
implemented prior to or during construction within
the Planned Action Study Area.
. Prior to construction:
o Assess pavement and subsurface condirion
of roadways being proposed for transport of
construction materials and equipment
Ensure pavement can support loads.
Adequate pavement quality would likely
reduce the occurrence of potholes and
would help maintain travel speeds.
o Alert landowners and residents of potential
construction.Motorists may be able to
adjust schedules and routes to avoid
s
,
�
w
�wr►` '�"
Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Planned Action Study Area Subarea
construction areas and minimize
disruprions.
o Develop traffic control plans for all affected
roadways.Oudine procedures for
maintenance of traffic,develop detour plans,
and idenrify potential reroutes.
o Place advance warning signage on roadways
surrounding construction locations to
minimize traffic disturbances.
. During construction:
o Place advance warning signage on NE
Sunset Boulevard and adjacent arterials to
warn motorists of potential vehicles
entering and exiting the roadway.Signage
could include"Equipment on Road,""Truck
Access;'or"Slow Vehicles Crossing."
o Use pilot cars as dictated by the Washington
State Department of Transportation
(WSDOT).
o Encourage carpooling among construction
workers to reduce traffic volume to and
from the construction site.
o Employ flaggers,as necessary,to direct
traffic when vehicles or large equipment are
entering or exiting the public road system to
minimize risk of conflicts between trucks
and passenger vehicles.
o Maintain at least one travel lane at all times,
if possible.Use flaggers to manage
alternaring directions of traffic.lf lane
closures must occur,adequate signage for
potential detours or possible delays should
be posted.
o Revisit tra�c control plans as construcrion
occurs.Revise traffic control plans to
improve mobility or address safety issues if
necessary.
6
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ r
� � ~
Attachment C. Summary of Reevaluation Approach — Noise
EIS Impact Analysis: Development would resuit in a noise increase from vehicles traveling on NE Sunset
Boulevard and local streets.As disclosed in the EIS,the estimated day-night noise levels from NE Sunset
Boulevard at the adjacent buildings indicates they would be exposed to "normally unacceptable" noise
levels exceeding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) outdoor day-night noise
criterion of 65 dBA. The noise levels at these first row residential dwellings currently exceed the HUD
noise criterion and would continue to exceed the criterion under Selected Sunset Area Alternatives.
Noise levels would be below the"unacceptable"criteria.
Conclusions: Portions of the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea, even under existing
conditions and the No Action Alternative, would be deemed "normally unacceptable" under the HUD
noise criteria without implementation of noise attenuation mitigation, due to traffic noise from the
adjacent street(NE Sunset Boulevard). No significant unavoidable adverse noise impacts are anticipated
in this subarea,if the noise control measures noted below are implemented to reduce anticipated future
traffic noise to levels suitable for residential uses under the HUD criteria.
ROD and Planned Action Mitigation Measures and Status with Master Plan Proposals:'
Original Mitigation Measure Approach in Master Plan
Site design approaches shall be incorporated to Market rate units would be placed along SR 900.The
reduce potential noise impacts including the City's design standards for building modulation
following. together with topography,especially west of
Harrington would reduce the number of units that
abut SR 900.1 z
• Concentrating park and open space uses away • "This measure is implemented by the design of the
from NE 5unset Boulevard. mixed use development generally encircling a
public open space that is located well away from
SR 900.The master plan design maximizes the
park size to the extent feasible.
• Where park and open space uses must be located • Some private open space associated with market
near NE Sunset Boulevard,avoiding activities that rate residential units may be located near SR 900,
require easily understood conversation(e.g., but the primary open space will be the public
instructional classes);or other uses where quiet park noted above as located well away from SR
conditions are required for the primary function 900.
of the activity.
1 It is a conceptual master plan assumption that based on City design standards and the nature of the property dimensions
fronting SR900 that building footprints would reflect modulation and that most units would be oriented away from the street
right of way.
z Based on a review of preliminary sites plans,the arrangement of buildings and likely distances of buildings to the future SR
900 centerline appear to be in the range of EIS assumptions studied for Alternatives 1,2 and 3 and the Preferred Alternative.
Therefore EIS results would not appreciably change;as described in the chart,the master plan approach appears to address EIS
mitigation measures.
BERK Consulting September 2014 1
- --_ . _ _ ---
,
� _ __ _ _
� � �
SUMfi/tAkY pF RE�VAL'.�ATiON,�PPROACH—NOESE
Original Mitigation Measure Approach in Master Plan
• Allowing for balconies on exterior facing units • At a conceptual level,the placement of balconies
only if they do not open to a bedroom. is not known at this time.At the time of site plan
review or building permits this may be addressed.
• Units that are to be supported with public funding
are placed north of the proposed park,the
furthest distance from SR 900.
According to HUD noise guidebook,noise • The City will apply construction standards via the
attenuation from various building materials are International Building Code and the State Energy
calculated using sound transmission class(STC) Code.These codes would likely lead to building
rating.Although the standard construction materials and practices that could meet the
approaches can normally achieve the STC rating of standard STC rating and likely beyond. For
more than 24 dBA as demonstrated in Final EIS exemple,compared to assumptions included in
Appendix E,the City shall require a STC rating of 30 F£IS Appendix F,page 4,February 23,2011
dBA reduction for these first row residential memo,the City's adopted Energy Code insulation
dwellings because the HUD noise guidebook shows standards are much higher than the assumptions
that the sound reduction achieved by different considered:l.A standard"exterior wall is actually
techniques may be a little optimistic3. 2x6 studs with R-21 insulation:'2.Windows are
double pane not single pane.(pers com,Jan
Conkling, Energy Plans Reviewer,City of Renton)
Other Mitigation Previously Considered and Rejected, Appendix F of FEIS:The noise analysis in Draft
EIS Section 3.6/4.6 and Final EIS Section 3.6 shows that sound walls are not feasible due to the height
and location and lack of benefit to upper storey uses;the mixed use character of the development close
to sidewalks and roads is intended to invite community use. The shallow nature of the property,
topography, lot pattern, and the road system as well as zoning requirements mean that the [Preferred
Alternative] building setbacks from NE Sunset Bouleverd are the most that can be reasonably achieved
and are greater flian the current developmen�
3 HUD noise guidebook,Chapter 4,page 33"...use the STC ratings with a bit of caution and remain aware of the possible 2-3 d6
overstating that you may get with the STC rating system"
BERK Consulting September 2014 2
� � � � � �
i i i
�',�� .�������,.,:�^ ,. ;�� ����� ���
�°�k��a;�� _,�����.3��x ,r �
'��',`�`�.� � ,:T�� #���d'a r, f�dz.��
r,�'.. � v, �a�+
a
�' � � ' v�" uy�y�,�w �s��q�'�"'
� .s
_ • .k����,�'f���5 ,1f,$�r�
�S�
� - t���1 �R! Y'� y .1'
� .� y r ;t t ' ^'d
• � 6���¢ �' � '.�9"
. , `��� �
. � ` .:
tSF�i 1 ;
zd i�a,
� k�t F� �
�wi��w 1w��lra�y� ,� w .w �+� ; t�
� _ � � '.+ �`� �����'��� '� �
'� � .,s•Blif..�'i�,. svy"C ""J"�Q,_` • '"��P
� rr.�.�•�`?�,� _ ,.e.,.._._�.� �%+H�ii��'w","",iir-•lt. � ����"`�'���
0 .*�,�a����,,. l��N�!1l�RI �`'�,'�O��� ,.
,�, �d �,.�y$1�� �i� ����6���. �-� ,�' �
� d ��t� �1° �s � �i .�� �"� � �` ��� ���
! �� ��� •'''�.� � � �
r
� `� w- �'��. ���o�^+'� `1C�,�i �'�� �d� • II/
� � i� � F a �G �tl %�J'.S �,o'` �` j� y�
�� � �� `� •R � � + il
r�� � e � . �-.rr Je
4�°�,,.x a �i,�:; v� 7,� :�� •��� ur, ��i. ia�! lR: a.�'� /I 4.
i��,4��rt{� ,:ax_' `�+ \ � �i� y�4�'�� i�* "�R� ��i !p :� +�`� ���*�.
�� \
�- �- �1:;�-A%;i� '�R;, �� �� k���`:
� � se` `9?� � ;r i� "�O' ',� �`` � ���; � �`�
� � '' � � � ~a
�`z '�;""�'�� ��� ` �'��� • '�� �_. .� •� � ! :' - i=j„ �"�' Yt�
!�'� , �� �' ►�, ��' , r � ,;$', r• �� � R
\ce; • ��i� �- �►.i._- �� ;j, � F �"�5, ,��� �����
�_ � r
��0} ��� ,wl ,��e:��#� �i� !�� � ws, �,.`; :. , � ��;:<<w�
��
�,a► ,C` � `;�0� � s� � i �/f � ���
, �_ . ♦
\�Q%, � !ti` ��,� ;►w rr�`J� y.:;:�.� '� M � �r! N/+�`r
\ '�� � 4 "�► � �+��%�i� ` �� 0''� ,!/
�o !3� ♦`' �v�-�.. ``',�,�fi. , s� f r, �., ��,
��► ♦ �� 'wm�� w �„ > ' �� ' /�e i/S,
<0� _51� �,� �. �, �° �pi f i� �
a O�y v9;�� �i�a re��::� G 1 ar /�' .!,
„�5 �_t��k�,� �� �\ — �pi a�+ w : `;d��' ,�.�I` *�,,,�w..�,7r� `�
r , ��:,1, �y1 .�' r v. Ma `�` � � �g � ° ��
� zt A � `
;£¢��'�+aw'x�;b��;�.. Ti`,� . �12 �,s .c ",.; ^�"� �•� ��� � i ' �
�On ��- • �� � �. . a�` ��"'� � "TM� '', �,, �.�F
� �°a *��-1 ��p '��� �c�,s� :�" �6s ���F s `
�, �`� �y�� ��,M��� i/e�, I��c�.�,�r'�G� ��
�� x. ���i, O�+� �� ,���•� �� 4 i�-
w �—��
� �� �,+� � �� `\1 ��q�i�. '� FpM r�.
r'
�r.� ��..;,. rcq�+► __ � { � 4
Y�1'PC.4s.. � � 4'!'�§ rt� ¢.� �� "�1]1�4'�\t.!6/'..: ��I.M�ir\ � �W �
r . :.blltos.tDvaV<r' �yj,�] 1 y'
,lnfw.y. � ��� �'�� �' ���~ �e,°.�M��`M� � Ms "���',3 � hy �� y�µ'il
� � f � �\► 1 P� � }
�,:5i� �'nw. �i.-� ��SA' y,��� �`` �GY7;e.i�4a'.."k,As�4��
"`wwe:� :�s:
1 1 11 11
��
�: � � 1
I
r _ . - -- - _ _ _
>_
� �
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
I ORDINANCE NO. �c'n��"�"XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A
PLANNED ACTION FOR THE SUNSET AREA PURSUANT TO THE STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. Findin�s. The Council finds as follows:
A. The City is subject to the requirements of the Growth Management Act, RCW
36.70A("GMA") and is located within an Urban Growth Area;
B. The City has adopted a Comprehensive Plan complying with the GMA, and �
�-has amended the Comprehensive Plan to address transportation improvements and
capital facilities specific to the Sunset Area;
C. The City has adopted a Community Investment Strategy, development
regulations and design guidelines specific to the Sunset Area which will guide growth and
revitalization of the area, including the Sunset Terrace public housing project;
D. The City has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS� for the Sunset
Area, and the EISL as suQplemented bv an addendum, adequately addresses the probable
significant environmental impacts associated with the type and amount of development
planned to occur in the designated Planned Action area;
E. The mitigation measures identified in the Planned Action EIS and attached to this
ordinance as Attachment B, together with adopted City development regulations, will
adequately mitigate significant impacts from development within the Planned Action area;
1
= -- _ _ _ _ _
_ . _- _ �
�' �` �
ORDINANCE NO.
F. The Comprehensive Plan and Planned Action EIS identify the location, type and
amount of development that is contemplated by the Planned Action;
G. Future projects that are implemented consistent with the Planned Action will
protect the environment, benefit the public and enhance economic development;
H. The City has provided numerous opportunities for meaningful public
involvement in the proposed Planned Action includin� comment periods, meetings, and
hearin�s durin� and after the preparation of the EIS, has considered all comments received,
and, as appropriate, has modified the proposal or mitigation measures in response to
comments;
I. The Sunset Area Planned Action is not an essential public facility as defined by
RCW 36.70A.200(1);
J. The Planned Action area applies to a defined area that is smaller than the overall
City boundaries;�
K. Public services and facilities are adequate to serve the proposed Planned Action.-L
L A revised master plan for the Sunset Terrace area was prepared and submitted
to the City on October 27, 2014;
M A reevaluation pursuant to the National Environmental Policv Act (NEPA), as
authorized bv U S Department of Housin� and Urban Development re�ulations, and an
addendum pursuant to SEPA were prepared to consider the environmental effects of the
revised Sunset Terrace master plan; and
2
�
�
� �'
ORDINANCE NO.
N. The Citv Council heid a public hearin� on December 1 2014 re�ardin�
housekeepin� amendments to the Planned Action applicable to the Sunset Area in order to
inte�rate the Reevaluation Alternative.
SECTION II. Procedures and Criteria for Evaluatin� and Determinin� Proiects as
Planned Actions.
A. Planned Action Area. The Planned Action designation shall apply to the area
shown in Attachment A.
B. Environmental Document. A Planned Action determination for a site-specific
implementing project application shall be based on the environmental analysis contained in the
Draft EIS issued by the City on December 17, 2010, and the Final EIS published on April 1, 2011;
and the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum published on November 21 2014. The Draft and
Final EISs and the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA addendum shall comprise the Planned Action EIS.
The mitigation measures contained in Attachment B are based upon the findings of the above
mentioned environmental documents�e��i�e�=►-€+S and shall, along with adopted City
regulations, provide the framework that the City will use to impose appropriate conditions on
qualifying Planned Action projects.
C. Planned Action Designated. Land uses and activities described in the Planned
Action EIS, subject to the thresholds described in subsection II.D and the mitigation measures
contained in Attachment B, are designated Planned Actions or Planned Action Projects
pursuant to RCW 43.21C.031. A development application for a site-specific Planned Action
project located within the Sunset Area shall be designated a Planned Action if it meets the
3
A
� � �.
ORDINANCE N0.
criteria set forth in subsection II.D of this ordinance and applicable laws, codes, development
regulations and standards of the City.
D. Planned Action Qualifications. The following thresholds shall be used to
determine if a site-specific development proposed within the Sunset Area is contemplated by
the Planned Action and has had its environmental impacts evaluated in the Planned Action EIS:
(1) Land Use.
(a) The following general categories/types of land uses are
considered Planned Actions: Single family and multi-family residential; schools; parks;
community and public facilities; office and conference; retail; entertainment and recreation;
services; utilities; and mixed-use development incorporating more than one use category
where permitted.
(b) Individual land uses considered as Planned Actions shall include
those uses specifically listed in RMC 4-2-060 as permitted or conditionally permitted in the
zoning classifications applied to properties within the Planned Action area provided they are
consistent with the general categories/types of land uses in (1)(a).
(2) Development Thresholds.
(a) The following amount of various new land uses are anticipated by
the Planned Action:
Land Use Development Amount
I Alternative 31 FEIS Preferred Alt
Reevaluation Alternative
Residential 2,506 units 2,339 units
Schools 57,010 gross square feet 57,010 gross square feet
I Parks 0.25-3.2 acres 3 acres
Office/Service 776,805 gross square 745,810 gross square
4
;�,
r �; �
ORDINANCE NO.
feet feet
Retail 476,299 gross square 457,119 gross square
feet feet
(b) The following infrastructure and utilities are considered planned
actions: roadways, water, wastewater, and stor.mwater facilities identified and studied in the
EIS.
(c) Shifting development amounts between categories of uses may
be permitted so long as the total build-out does not exceed the aggregate amount of
development and trip generation reviewed in the EIS, and so long as the impacts of that
development have been identified in the Planned Action EIS and are mitigated consistent with
Attachment B.
�d} The Renton Sunset Area Master Site Plan is included in
Attachment C and is to be used as a conceptual �uide to redevelopment in that portion of the
Planned Action area to�ether with the land use studied in the NEPA reevaluation/SEPA
addendum published on November 21, 2014, and the use allowances of the Renton Municipal
Code.
(�e) If future development proposals in the Planned Action area
exceed the development thresholds specified in this ordinance, further environmental review
may be required pursuant to WAC 197-11-172. Further, if proposed development would alter
the assumptions and analysis in the Planned Action EIS, further environmental review may be
required.
(3) Transportation - Trip Ran�es and Thresholds. The number of new PM
Peak Hour Trips anticipated in the Planned Action area and reviewed in the EIS are as follows:
5
r
� � N
ORDINANCE NO.
Alternative/Period PM Peak Hour Trips*
2006 2,082 trips
2030 Alternative 3/Reevaluation 5,555 trips
Alternative
2030 Preferred Alt 5,386 trips
Net increase from 2006->2030 3,473 trips
I Alternative 3 /Reevaluation Alternative
Net increase from 2006->2030 Preferred 3,304 trips
Alternative
*all P.M. peak hour trips with at least one end (origin, destination, or both) in TAZs
containing the study area
Uses or activities that would exceed the range of maximum trip levels will require
additional SEPA review.
(4) Chan�ed Conditions. Should environmental conditions change
significantly from those analyzed in the Planned Action EIS, the City's SEPA Responsible Official
may determine that the Planned Action designation is no longer applicable until supplemental
environmental review is conducted.
E. Planned Action Review Criteria.
(1) The City's Environmental Review Committee may designate as "planned
actions", pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030, applications that meet all of the following conditions:
(a) The proposal is located within the Planned Action area identified
in Attachment A of this ordinance;
(b) The proposed uses and activities are consistent with those
described in the Planned Action EIS and subsection II.D of this ordinance;
(c) The proposal is within the Planned Action thresholds and other
criteria of subsection II.D of this ordinance;
6
_ _ _ _ _ _
�
� � �
ORDINANCE NO.
(d) The proposal is consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive
Plan and applicable zoning regulations;
(ej The proposal's significant adverse environmental impacts have
been identified in the Planned Action EIS;
(fi� The proposal's significant impacts have been mitigated by
application of the measures identified in Attachment B, and other applicable City regulations,
together with any modifications or variances or special permits that may be required;
(g) The proposal complies with all applicable local, state and/or
federal laws and regulations, and the Environmental Review Committee determines that these
constitute adequate mitigation; and
(h) The proposal is not an essential public facility as defined by RCW
36.70A.200(1).
(2) The City shall base its decision on review of a SEPA checklist, or an
alternative form approved by the Department of Ecology, and review of the application and
supporting documentation.
(3) A proposal that meets the criteria of this section shall be considered to
qualify and be designated as a planned action, consistent with the requirements of RCW
43.21C.030,WAC 197-11-164 et seq,and this ordinance.
F. Effect of Planned Action.
(1) Designation as a planned action project means that a qualifying proposal
has been reviewed in accordance with this ordinance and found to be consistent with its
7
__ �
� � �
ORDINANCE N0.
development parameters and thresholds, and with the environmental analysis contained in the
Planned Action EIS.
(2) Upon determination by the City's Environmental Review Committee that
the proposal meets the criteria of subsection II.D and qualifies as a planned action,the proposal
shall not require a SEPA threshold determination, preparation of an EIS, or be subject to further
review pursuant to SEPA.
G. Planned Action Permit Process. Applications for planned actions shall be
reviewed pursuant to the following process:
(1) If the project is determined to qualify as a Planned Action, it shall
proceed in accordance with the applicable permit review procedures specified in RMC 4-8-080G
and 4-9, except that no SEPA threshold determination, EIS or additional SEPA review shall be
required. The decision of the Environmental Review Committee regarding qualification as a
� Planned Action shall be final.
(2) Public notice and review for projects that qualify as Planned Actions shall
be tied to the underlying permit. The review process for the underlying permit shall be as
provided in RMC 4-8-OSOG and 4-9 as modified bv RCW 43.21C.440(31(b). If notice in addition to
that reauired by RCW 43.21C.440(3)(b) is otherwise required for the underlying permit, the
notice shall state that the project has qualified as a Planned Action. If notice is not otherwise
required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required by this ordinance.
(3) If a project is determined to not qualify as a Planned Action, the
Environmental Review Committee shall so notify the applicant and prescribe a SEPA review
procedure consistent with the City's SEPA regulations and the requirements of state law. The
8
�
P
R
t'
� �
ORDINANCE N0.
notice shalf describe the elements of the application that result in failure to qualify as a Planned
Action.
(4) Projects that fail to qualify as Planned Actions may incorporate or
otherwise use relevant elements of the Planned Action EIS, as well as other relevant SEPA
documents, to meet their SEPA requirements. The Environmental Review Committee may limit
the scope of SEPA review for the non-qualifying project to those issues and environmental
impacts not previously addressed in the Planned Action EIS.
SECTION III. Monitorin�and Review.
A. The City shall monitor the progress of development in the designated Planned
Action area to ensure that it is consistent with the assumptions of this ordinance and the
Planned Action EIS regarding the type and amount of development and associated impacts, and
with the mitigation measures and improvements planned for the Sunset Area.
B. This Planned Action ordinance shall be reviewed no later than five (5) years from
its effective date by the Environmental Review Committee to determine the continuing
relevance of its assumptions and findings with respect to environmental conditions in the
Planned Action area, the impacts of development, and required mitigation measures. Based
upon this review, the City may propose amendments to this ordinance and/or may supplement
or revise the Planned Action EIS.
C. At the following time periods, the City shall evaluate the overall sustainability of
the Sunset Area Planned Action area defined in Attachment A consistent with Final EIS
Appendix A review of Goals and Objectives and LEED-ND qualitative evaluation, or an
equivalent approach:
9
.
R
. . �/
� �
ORDINANCE N0.
(1) At the time of the five (5)-year review in subsection IV.B above.
(2) At the time of a NEPA re-evaluation pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58.53, for
the Sunset Community Planned Action Area.
D. The City shall conduct a Greenroads evaluation or its equivalent at the time the
NE Sunset Boulevard design is at the 30%design level and at the 60%design level.
E. The City shall review the Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea at the
time of the five (5)-year review in subsection III.B in relation to the following evaluation criteria:
(1) Contribution of final conceptual designs to 2030 Regional Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT) consistent with Final EIS Table 3.2-4, Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea
Contribution to Forecast 2030 Regional VMT.
(2) Changes in land use and population growth and resulting greenhouse gas
emissions of final conceptual designs compared to Tables 3.2-5 and 3.2-6 of the Final EIS, titled
respectively Assumed Land Use and Population Growth for Greenhouse Gas Emission
Calculations—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea and Comparison of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Potential Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Subarea.
(3) Change in effective impervious area for Sunset Terrace Redevelopment
Subarea compared with Final EIS Preferred Alternative and Alternative 3 which resulted in a
decrease of approximately 0.51 acre (11%) to 1.07 acres (23%) compared to existing conditions
per Table 7 of the Planned Action ordinance Attachment B.
SECTION IV. Conflict. In the event of a conflict between this ordinance or any
mitigation measure imposed thereto, and any ordinance or regulation of the City, the
10
�.
w
: � �
ORDINANCE N0.
provisions of this ordinance shall control except that the provision of any Uniform Code shall
supersede.
SECTION V. Severabilitv. Should any section, subsection, par.agraph, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application be declared to be unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality or
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or
situation.
SECTION VI. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically
delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect five (5)
days after its passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
I PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this day of ,�-�2014.
Bonnie I.Walton,City Clerk
I APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this day of .�2014.
Denis Law, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren,City Attorney
Date of Publication:
IIIDt1 1 7(1C�C 11?/'I 1��.-.
11