HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolera Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use and Street Modification1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 1
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Solera Master Plan
Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, Conditional
Use and Street Modification
LUA18-000490, SA-M, PP, CU-H, MOD
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND FINAL DECISION
Summary
The Applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Preliminary Plat Approval, Conditional Use
Permit, and Street Modification Approval for a proposed mixed-use development that would provide
approximately 673 multi-family residential units and 39,000 square feet of commercial space located
on a 10.8 acres site at 2902 NE Sunset Blvd. The applications are approved subject to conditions.
Conditions 4, 5 and 18 of the staff report have been revised as agreed by staff during the hearing.
Testimony
Note: This summary should not be considered a part of the Examiner’s Recommendation. It is solely
provided for the convenience of the reader, for an overview of testimony. Nothing in this summary
should be construed as a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law, or signifying any priority or
importance to the comments of any individual. No representations are made as to accuracy. For an
accurate rendition of the testimony, the reader is referred to the recording of the hearing.
Matt Herrera, City of Renton Senior Planner, summarized the staff report.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 2
2
Mr. Herrera mentioned that one of the aerial images described in his Power Point was dated. The aerial
doesn’t reflect that just south of the project is the old Sunset Area where old WWII Duplexes have been
removed and a new library and new park have been installed.
Mr. Herrera stated that page 9 of the Staff Report has an error. He noted that the child care facility only
contained 5,900sq.ft., and that is actually a two-level child-care facility so there is an additional
5,900sq.ft. to be added to this calculation. This correction is crucial because this additional area was
not included but it should be on page 27 of the Staff Report which calculates the amount of space
required for pedestrian-oriented space for non-residential uses in the Urban Design District Review.
This means that the total amount of commercial space shown on the Master Site Plan for these two
buildings, and also the existing US Bank Building, would be approximately 39,092sq.ft.
The examiner asked Mr. Herrera if the Applicant proposes to do the phases of construction in any
specified sequence or if the Applicant can select certain phases to work on in any order. Mr. Herrera
responded that the city has been clear that whichever phase goes first, it needs to be one of the mixed-
use buildings and the public infrastructure, then a residential town-home block can go next, then before
another town-home block can go the second mixed-use building needs to go up with the podium
constructed, signed off and then the final phases of the town-home development can be constructed.
The examiner asked Mr. Herrera if the Applicant abandons the projects before all phases are completed
whether there would there be any issue with incomplete mitigation. Mr. Herrera responded that the
conditions address this. The first phase would get the public infrastructure completed. The first phase
would also get the mixed-use building completed, which is a requirement along this site’s frontage.
Corey Watson, representing Quadrant Homes Corporation, spoke on behalf of the Applicants. Mr.
Watson brought Jeremy Febus of KPFF engineeri ng with him to the hearing. Mr. Febus is the project
engineer and spoke while addressing specific issues with the staff’s recommended conditions. Mr.
Febus mentioned that he appreciates the hard work of the staff on this project. Mr. Febus posited that
the Applicant would like further consideration on 3 specific conditions in the Staff Report. First, Mr.
Febus addressed recommendations 4 and 5 on page 58 of the Staff Report. Mr. Febus asked that the
conditions be such that the Applicant has the ability to meet the requirement for residential separation
from the public right-of-way through architectural features, materials, elevations, etc. subject to city
approval. He further stated that as the conditions read now, the only remedy is a grade separation. He
asked for flexibility to have architectural review open other possibilities.
Mr. Febus continued his commentary mentioning that the Applicant would like further consideration
on recommended condition 18, which governs the phasing of the project. Mr. Febus requested that the
threshold for commencing on the first town-home phase be the approval of building-permit for the
mixed-use building rather than the completion of the podium construction. Mr. Febus asserted that at
that point the Applicant has clearly demonstrated their commitment to the project in time and resources
and approvals.
Mr. Febus mentioned that page 10 of the Staff Report, under the section ‘Lot Dimensions,’ the last
sentence refers to the mixed-used parcel being 619sq.ft. when it is actually 88,619sq.ft.. Mr. Febus
also pointed out that on pg. 46 of the Staff Report, under the ‘Transportation’ section, the report states
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 3
3
the right-of-way dedication on Jefferson Ave NE is 53ft., yet there is “200ft segment of Jefferson that
is 47ft. wide… the difference is that the onsite parking is eliminated on that stretch of roadway.
Ralph Evans, neighbor, had a question about how the adjoining roads would be impacted and expressed
concern about road access. Mr. Herrera deferred to Public Works who discussed the variations of travel
paths on the Sunset Boulevard mentioning that access into and out from the site will be provided from
and onto Sunset Boulevard. Mr. Evans asked if there were provisions to help pedestrians navigate the
streets in the area of the project. Public Works mentioned there are not currently plans for this to be
done in future developments, but there could potentially be impacts due to requirements in future
projects. The speed limit on Sunset Blvd. is 35mph.
In staff rebuttal, in response to conditions 4 and 5, regarding the issue of setbacks, Mr. Herrera stated
staff would be amenable to the flexibility requested by the Applicant by revising the conditions to add
“or as approved by the current planning manager.”
Mr. Herrera discussed condition 18 and the issue of phasing. Mr. Herrera referenced the large amount
of public investment the City and the Renton Housing Authority has put into this neighborhood to
transform lots formerly comprised of temporary duplexes into a compact, urban-style, mixed-use
development. The mixed-use component of the Solera project is considered among one of the chief
factors of this development for staff. Therefore, the first phase of the project must contain the
development of the mixed-use building and infrastructure around it. When the concrete podium is
finished, then the Applicant can move forward with their residential-only portion of the project.
However, staff would be amenable to adding flexibility to this phasing. Mr. Herrera continued that
staff would like to keep the concrete podium portion of the condition (#18). However, he stated staff
was open to adding an “or” statement that says the next phase may commence when shoring walls and
foundation excavation are completed along with a receipt of either cash set aside, a letter of credit, or
an assignment of funds approved by the city for the entire cost of the mixed-use building.
In closing, the Applicant stated that there seems to be one central issue that the staff and Applicant are
still in disagreement on and that is the phasing. The Applicant stated he believes this project is important
and they are going to continue to invest money wisely into this project. He mentioned that, if the podium
becomes a requirement, that will add to the amount of work and an unintended consequence of this
may be that the project undergoes significant delays. He reiterated that he still wants the condition
modified.
Exhibits
Exhibits 1-42 identified at page 2 of the November 27, 2018 Staff Report were entered during the
November 27, 2018 public hearing. In addition, the following documents were admitted during the
November 27, 2018 public hearing as well:
Exhibit 43 City of Renton COR maps
Exhibit 44 Google Aerial Map of the project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 4
4
Exhibit 45 Staff Power Point
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Corey Watson, Quadrant Homes, 15900 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 300, Bellevue, WA
98008.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the subject applications on November 27, 2018 in the City of
Renton Council Chambers.
Substantive:
3. Project and Site Description. The Applicant is requesting Master Site Plan Review, Preliminary
Plat Approval, Conditional Use Permit, and Street Modification Approval for a proposed mixed-use
development that would provide approximately 673 multi-family residential units and 39,000 square
feet of commercial space located on a 10.8 acres site at 2902 NE Sunset Blvd. The subject property
would contain two mixed-use buildings along the NE Sunset Blvd frontage with six stories above
grade and up to 85 feet in maximum height. The two mixed-use buildings would contain
approximately 521 multi-family units with ground floor commercial space. The subject property
would also contain approximately 152 fee-simple townhomes under the unit lot subdivision
provisions. Net residential density on the subject property would result in approximately 70 dwelling
units per acre. The site would contain a total of 906 parking spaces located within the mixed-use
buildings, townhome units, and a six-space surface lot. The existing Greater Hi-Lands Shopping
Center would be demolished with the exception of the US Bank building. A new public street
alignment would be constructed providing access through the site with alleys for vehicle access to
residences. Street frontage improvements would be constructed along the site’s periphery.
The purpose of the conditional use permit is to exceed the maximum building height for the CV zone
from 70-feet for buildings with a ground floor commercial use to a maximum of 75 -feet for Mixed
Use Building A and a maximum of 85-feet for Mixed Use Building B (Exhibits 41 and 42).
The street modification request seeks a modification from RMC 4-6-060F.2 Minimum Design
Standards for Public Streets and Alleys for the following modifications to streets within the master
site plan and along its frontage: (1) Jefferson Ave/Lane NE and NE 11th St – a Residential Access
Street which requires a 53-foot right-of-way (ROW) with 26-foot paved roadway width, including
two (2) 10-foot travel lanes and one (1) 6-foot parking lane, 0.5-foot curb and gutter, 8-foot planter
strip, and 5-foot sidewalk. The Applicant is proposing to reduce the paved roadway width for sections
of these roadways as shown on Exhibit 4 from the standard 26 feet to a reduced 20 feet thereby
eliminating the 6-foot parking lane; and (2) NE Sunset Blvd, a principal arterial, the Applicant is
proposing to provide on-street, parallel parking, separated from the vehicular traffic of NE Sunset
Blvd by an 8-ft planter strip and 10-ft drive aisle in order to support the retail and commercial uses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 5
5
of the proposed mixed-use buildings along NE Sunset Blvd.
The Applicant proposes to construct the project in five (5) phases as shown on the phasing plan
(Exhibit 12). Phase one (1) would include Mixed Use Building B along with the public infrastructure
on Jefferson Ave/Lane NE, NE 11th St., Harrington Pl NE, NE 12th St, Kirkland Ave NE, NE Sunset
Blvd, and Alley Tract C. Following Phase one (1), the Applicant would begin Phase two (2), the
townhome block R2 west of Jefferson NE and south of NE 11th St. Phase three (3) would be the
Mixed Use Building ‘A’. Following Phase three (3), the remaining townhomes would begin
construction. As the townhomes are subordinate to the Master Site Plan with regard to use and density
in this Commercial Mixed Use land use designation, a condition of approval requ ires the Applicant
to follow the Phasing Plan as provided in Exhibit 12. Construction activities on the townhome
components of the Master Plan that follow a mixed use building phase shall not be permitted until
the mixed use building concrete podium is completed and passed inspection. Any requested
modifications of the phasing plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager and shall continue to result in the initial phase of construction to include one of the two
mixed use buildings and public infrastructure improvements identified in orange on the phasing plan
4. Surrounding Uses. Multifamily residential is located to the north and west of the project. A fire
station is also located to the north. To the east is commercial retail and to the south is commercial
retail, a library and a park. All surrounding areas are zoned CV.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the
project. The most significant impacts are individually addressed as follows:
A. Critical Areas. There are no critical areas (e.g. wetlands, streams, geographically hazardous areas)
on the project site. The existing site is almost entirely paved or contains existing structures that
will be removed.
B. Tree Protection. As conditioned, the proposal complies with the City’s tree retention standards
and thus provides for adequate protection of trees.
The Applicant’s arborist report prepared by Creative Landscape Solutions, dated March 3, 2018
(Exhibit 13) and Tree Retention Plan (Exhibit 14) was submitted with the land use application. 31
onsite trees are located in and around the US Bank building located on proposed lot MU2. The
remaining trees are located in future right of ways and are not considered significant trees under
the City’s tree retention standards. Of the 31 trees, the report identifies 13 as being viable and
mentions that no trees would be retained but instead replaced at the rate of 12 caliper inches per
protected tree removed. As the site would be required to retain one (1) tree or 10-percent of the 13
significant trees under the City’s tree retention standards, a total of 12 caliper inches was identified
as replacement in the arborist report.
The Tree Retention Plan differs from the arborist report as it identifies the retention of six (6)
significant trees near the US Bank building. It appears there was no consideration of attempting to
retain trees 856-859 although they are located outside of a proposed building and within a future
open space. Additionally, existing street trees 862 and 863 are proposed to be removed although
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 6
6
they appear to be able to remain as the planter strip will increase in size. The general landscaping
standards (RMC 4-4-070G.3) require the redevelopment of properties to retain existing trees when
possible and minimize the impact of tree loss during development. Therefore, a condition of
approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised arborist report and tree retention plan with the
civil construction permit application that considers the retention of trees 856-859 and 862-863.
The arborist report shall identify best practices for working in and around drip lines of the retained
trees.
C. External Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with the scale and character
of the surrounding neighborhood.
The project has been appropriately designed to mitigate aesthetic/compatibility impacts caused by
its relatively large mass and scale to some surrounding uses. The Applicant proposes to construct
the larger mixed-use buildings along NE Sunset Blvd, a principal arterial in the City and adjacent
to other intensive uses such as shopping centers that are also within the CV zoning classification.
The project transitions north, west, and south with 3-story townhome development as it nears less
intensive multi-family and single-family development patterns. The transition in scale across the
development from NE Sunset Boulevard to Harrington Place NE provides a development pattern
that allows for a transition from a primary commercial center along an arterial to a residential
neighborhood along residential access roads. As provided on the Colored Landscape Plan (Exhibit
4), landscaping in public and private spaces will provide transitions between developments and
enhance the project’s appearance. Additional examination and refined landscape plans will be
reviewed during the Administrative site plan review applications for each phase.
The neighborhood along NE Sunset Blvd consists generally of commercial uses setback from the
street by surface parking lots. As parcels along this arterial redevelop they will be required to
construct the buildings closer to the street and provide structured parking. To accommodate on -
street parking for the ground floor retail of the mixed-use buildings, the Applicant would relocate
the planter strip west of the sidewalk to create a frontage road separated from the principal arterial.
The additional frontage dedication to facilitate this street treatment and other design considerations
would result in the building being located directly behind the sidewalk instead of being setback
between 15 and 20 feet as is typically required in the CV zone. In an effort to reduce the impacts
of the increased heights of the mixed use buildings on the abutting pedestrian realm along NE
Sunset Blvd a condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide one of the following
treatments to Mixed Use Buildings A and B along NE Sunset Blvd: (1) the floor to finished ceiling
height shall be a minimum of 18-feet; or (2) the floor to finished ceiling height shall be a minimum
of 15-feet and the residential portion of the buildings (wood construction) on top of the concrete
podium be setback a minimum of 15-feet.
Mixed Use Building ‘A’ is encroaching into the secondary front yard setback along Jefferson Ave
NE and adjacent to the transitioning three (3) story townhome unit lot subdivision portion of the
development. To reduce the bulk and scale and increased height impacts of the building on the
unit lot townhome subdivision, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit elevations
with the Administrative site plan review application that provides a minimum setback of 15-feet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 7
7
for the portion of Building ‘A’ above the ground floor townhome units along the Jefferson Ave
NE elevation.
D. Lighting. The Master Site Plan application did not provide details regarding lighting. Lighting
requirements will be reviewed for compliance with each individual Administrative site plan review
application and/or subsequent building permit application.
E. Views. According to the staff report, it is not anticipated the new buildings would result in
substantially obscuring existing views of attractive natural features, including shorelines or Mt.
Rainier. There is no evidence to the contrary in the administrative record.
F. Internal Compatibility. As previously noted, the Master Site Plan arranges the buildings with
larger densities and scale along NE Sunset Blvd and transitions to a smaller scale and lesser density
along the north, west, and south sides of the site. The mixed-use buildings would provide a buffer
for the townhomes from NE Sunset Blvd and the townhomes would provide a buffer from the
mixed-use buildings to the neighbors to the north, west, and south. The Solar Study (Exhibit 11)
shows limited offsite shadow impacts that would be atypical for this scale of development.
G. Increased Height Impacts. The increased height subject to the Applicant’s conditional use permit
would not adversely affect adjoining properties. The proposed height for the mixed-use buildings
allows for the density of the site to be weighted towards NE Sunset Boulevard. This provides for
the opportunity to have a more positive impact on adjacent properties by reducing the density
towards the rear of the site. The result is a project that transitions from the single-family homes
and low rise multifamily neighbors to the North and West of the site to onsite three story
townhomes and finally up to seven story mixed use buildings along the commercial corridor.
The Applicant prepared a solar study (Exhibit 11) that represents the effects of shade and
shadowing the mixed-use buildings would create on neighboring properties. Shading impacts
would be limited to the Master Plan area and NE Sunset Blvd based on Summer Solstice and
Spring Equinox solar exposures. During Winter, shading would extend north to the adjacent gas
station and to the Rite Aid drugstore on NE 12th and NE Sunset Blvd.
While shading and view obstruction impacts would be nominal, the overall bulk and scale of the
75 and 85 foot structures will be unique as no other buildings in the neighborhood are near those
heights. In an effort to mitigate the impacts the height increase would cause related to bulk and
scale of the two mixed use buildings, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide
modulation (both vertical and horizontal) on Mixed Use Building A and B beyond what is required
by Design District D regulations. The exterior cladding and articulation shall be a diverse mix of
high quality materials that is commensurate to the overall size and scale of the building. The
buildings shall incorporate upper story setbacks, roof extension features, extended feature
elements on the buildings’ corners abutting NE 11th St and NE Sunset Blvd, or other articulation
beyond what is already required in the Urban Design District ‘D’ Regulations.
Staff determined that the requested height increase would not cause noise, light, or glare impacts.
Any potential impacts caused by noise, light, or glare would be adequately mitigated via existing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 8
8
code limitations. Staff’s findings in this regard are consistent with the record and there is no
reasonable basis to find to the contrary.
6. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate
infrastructure and public services as follows:
A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sanitary sewer service for the development would be
provided by the City of Renton.
B. Fire and Police Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Reginal Fire
Authority. Police protection would be provided by the City of Renton Police Department.
The proposed project would result in an estimated 594 police calls for service within a
calendar year. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicates that sufficient resources exist to
furnish services to the proposed development; subject to the condition that the Applicant
provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee would be required for the
future dwellings and commercial space. The current Fire Impact Fee is $964.53 per multi-
family dwelling. Fire Impact Fees for retail is $1.25 per square foot and for restaurants it is
$5.92 per square foot. The fee in effect at the time of building permit application is applicable
to this project and is payable at the time of building permit issuance.
C. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal will provide for adequate parks and open
space. No park space is required by City code for the proposal. As to open space, the
Colored Landscape Plan (Exhibit 4) identifies pedestrian courts, pedestrian easements, and
open spaces but does not provide easily identifiable dimensions or square footage
calculations to determine whether the spaces meet the minimum requirements. Additionally,
it does not appear that a majority of the townhomes are contiguous to the open spaces as
required and many of the open spaces contain drainage facilities in the form of bioretention
facilities such as rain gardens and swales. As the Master Site Plan does not indicate how the
unit lot subdivision component of the plan would meet the common open space requirement,
a condition of approval requires the Applicant to submit a revised master plan with the first
Administrative site plan review application that clearly indicates the amount of common
open space meeting the standards of RMC 4-2.115E.2 is provided. Any deficiencies in
standards for common open space may be satisfied via a fee-in-lieu as permitted by RMC 4-
1-240B.3 with the fee paid prior to the issuance of the civil construction permit.
D. Pedestrian Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable pedestrian transitions and
linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. Further, the proposal
provides for an appropriate and safe pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings,
open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties. New
sidewalks would be provided along all street frontages with a new 12-foot wide sidewalk
located along NE Sunset Blvd. Both mixed use buildings would contain public sidewalks
along each of their respective street frontages. As shown on the colored landscape plan
(Exhibit 4), the north side of Mixed Use Building ‘A’ would have a series of pedestrian
connections from the building to the US Bank, open space area, and connection to the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 9
9
sidewalk along Kirkland Ave NE. Surface material of the pedestrian pathways would be
reviewed with the Administrative site plan review application.
Pedestrian walkways internal to the development would link residents to the public sidewalk
system, however they are separated by vehicle alleys in unit lot subdivision Blocks R2 and
R3. Additionally, the connections are not aligned across the alleys as shown on the colored
landscape plan (Exhibit 4). Therefore, a condition of approval requires the Applicant to
submit revised site plans for the unit lot townhomes with each Administrative site plan
review application that aligns pedestrian connections across vehicle alleys and provides
delineated pedestrian crossings with paving that contrasts with the asphalt paving of the
alley.
E. Vehicle Circulation. The proposal provides for desirable vehicle transitions and linkages
between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The project would extend a public
street from NE 10th Street, connecting the site to Sunset Neighborhood Park, and align the
spine road with Jefferson Ave NE. An east/west connection would be provided via NE 11th
St connecting Harrington Pl NE to NE Sunset Blvd.
F. Street Improvements. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate transportation
improvements. Public works staff have reviewed the proposal for master plan level
conformance to City street standards and has found the proposal to be generally consistent.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (Exhibit 20), was prepared by Transpo Group. The site generated
traffic volumes were calculated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, (2017). Based on the calculations provided, the
proposed development would average a reduction of 522 daily vehicle trips. Weekday peak
hour AM trips would generate 198 new vehicle trips, with 160 vehicles leaving and 38
vehicles entering the site. Weekday peak hour PM trips would generate 26 new vehicle trips,
with 43 vehicles entering and a reduction of 17 vehicles exiting the site. As detailed in the
report the proposed project is not expected to lower the levels of service of the surrounding
intersections included in the traffic study. Therefore, off-site mitigation is limited to paying
traffic impacts fees for increased traffic created by the development.
The Applicant will be required to construct street improvements meeting the City’s Street
Standards unless otherwise modified as approved by this decision. The Applicant will be
required to construct Jefferson Ave NE and NE 11th St within the development with a 53-
foot right-of-way that includes 26-foot pavement width, 0.5-foot curb and gutter, 8-foot
planter strips and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the street. Portions of Sunset Lane NE
within the existing development would require a street vacation. The street vacation process
requires separate approval from City Council. As conditioned, the street vacation will be
required prior to civil construction permit issuance. Additionally, there are existing ROWs
within the subject property that as conditioned are required to be vacated prior to civil
construction permit issuance.
The subject property abuts the following frontages that would require improvements:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 10
10
NE 12th St - Frontage improvements and dedication of 9.5-feet of frontage would be
required. The Applicant would construct 0.5-foot curb, 8-foot rain garden, and 6-foot
sidewalk.
Kirkland Ave NE – Frontage improvements with no dedication. A 0.5-foot curb, an 8-
foot planting strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, and storm drainage improvements would be
required.
NE Sunset Blvd – Frontage improvements. The Applicant proposes a frontage road
separated from the vehicular travel lanes of NE Sunset Blvd by the installation of an 8-
foot planter strip/bioretention facility with 0.5-foot curb and gutter on both sides. The
frontage road includes a 10-foot drive aisle, 7-foot parking lane, 12-foot sidewalk and
0.5-foot curb and gutter.
Harrington Place NE – Frontage improvements and dedication of 1.5-feet. The Applicant
would construct half street improvements including a pavement width of 26 feet (13 feet
from centerline), a 0.5-foot curb, an 8-foot planting strip, a 5-foot sidewalk, street trees
and storm drainage improvements.
The proposal has passed the City’s traffic concurrency test per RMC 4-6-070.D (Exhibit 21),
which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels
included in the LOS-tested Transportation Plan, and future payment of appropriate
transportation impact fees.
The proposal ensures a safe and efficient internal transportation system by accommodating
two vehicle lanes and a parking lane. Sidewalks would be separated from the vehicle lanes
by a curb and planter strip. Curb bulbs would be provided at intersections to shorten
pedestrian crossing distances and also provide a traffic calming measure. A raised table
intersection required as a condition of approval would provide additional traffic calming
internal to the site.
G. Vehicular Access. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate access. The master
plan’s 152-unit lot townhomes and two (2) mixed use lots would have access to a public
street. The unit lot townhomes would gain vehicle access to their respective lots via a system
of 16-foot wide alleys that are provided throughout the development. These alleys reduce
the curb cuts along the public streets on the subject property resulting in fewer pedestrian
conflicts with vehicles. The alleys have direct connections from either Jefferson Ave/Lane
NE or NE 11th St. Per the unit lot subdivision parent site requirements (RMC 4-7-090F.3),
the alleys would be platted as a tract and owned in common by the owners of the individual
unit lots. While the parent site of each unit lot townhome would have direct vehicular access
to a public street, each unit lot contains access to a private roadway (alleys) which do not
meet the Unit Lot Drive standards of RMC 4-6-060K, therefore a condition of approval
requires that the Applicant submit a street modification request to modify the Unit Lot Drive
standards and provide the private alley sections as shown on the townhome unit lot
subdivision.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 11
11
The mixed use lots referred to as MU1 and MU2 on the Subdivision Plan (Exhibit 33) are
provided access from NE 11th St. For Lot MU1 vehicle access is gained from Alley Tract C
within the unit lot subdivision block referred to as R3 on the on Subdivision Plan. No curb
cuts would be needed on Lot MU1. As the alley would be platted with the R3 unit lot
subdivision block, a condition of approval requires the Applicant ensure irrevocable access
to Alley Tract C for Mixed Use Building B. The irrevocable access shall be shown on the
final plat documents and recorded as an access easement with the King County Recorder’s
Office.
Access for Lot MU2 would be provided via a single curb cut located on the NE 11th St.
Similar to Lot MU1 this would result in greater pedestrian orientation and fewer
opportunities for conflicts with vehicles. This lot would serve Mixed Use Building ‘A’ and
the existing US Bank building. The redevelopment of this area would result in the loss of
direct access and parking for the US Bank building. Therefore, a condition of approval
requires the Applicant to prepare an irrevocable access and parking agreement with Mixed
Use Building ‘A’ and the US Bank building.
H. Utilities, Loading and Storage Areas. Storage and garbage enclosures would be located
within the mixed-use buildings. An alley provides the loading area for Mixed Use Building
B. The specific Administrative site plan review applications for each phase of the Solera
Master Plan would be required to identify compliance with these standards.
I. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate school facilities and walking
conditions to and from school. It is anticipated that the Renton School District can
accommodate any additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools:
Kennydale Elementary, McKnight Middle School, and Hazen High School. Elementary and
High School students from the proposed development would be bussed to their schools. The
stop is located at NE 12th St and Harrington Ave NE which is also the location of McKnight
Middle School. Middle School students would walk to school. The proposed project includes
the installation of new public streets within the development and frontage improvements
along the site’s periphery. All street improvements would include sidewalks. Students would
have a walking route to the bus stop with existing sidewalk improvements or installed as part
of the development. Students would connect to the abutting NE 12th St from Jefferson Ave
NE or NE 11th St/Harrington Place NE and walk west to Harrington Ave NE or they would
walk south from Jefferson Ave NE connecting to NE 10th St continue west to Harrington
Ave NE and walk north to NE 12th St.
A school impact fee would be required for the future dwellings. The current Renton School
District Impact Fee is $1,448 per multifamily dwelling unit. The fee in effect at the time of
building permit application is applicable to this project and is payable at the time of building
permit issuance.
J. Transit and Bicycles. The proposal provides for adequate transit and appropriate transit and
bicycle facilities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 12
12
As to transit, as provided by comments received from King County Metro Transit (Exhibit
23), the bus stop adjacent to the site on NE Sunset Blvd is already a very active bus stop and
due to the increased density proposed by the Solera Master Plan, the stop is likely to become
a major RapidRide station. It is anticipated that the adjacent stop 45145 will be upgraded to
RapidRide in 2021-2022. King County Metro has indicated that the Applicant should provide
RapidRide infrastructure as a component of their NE Sunset Blvd frontage improvements.
While the site is under construction the Applicant will be required to provide a bus stop or
temporary zone for transit riders. A condition of approval requires the Applicant coordinate
with King County Metro Transit for RapidRide improvements at bus stop #45145 on NE
Sunset Blvd. Those improvements include, but are not limited to, shelter footings at the bus
stop and conduit to support RapidRide signage and lighting.
As to bicycle parking, the Applicant has stated on the project summary sheet (Exhibit 37)
that 449 bicycle parking spaces would be provided for the Master Site Plan. Mixed Use
Building A would provide 153 spaces, Mixed Use Building B would provide 144 spaces,
and each townhome would provide one (1) space per dwelling unit. The master plan
application does not provide the level of detail to verify compliance with the bicycle parking
standards of RMC 4-4-080F.11, however these requirements would be verified with each
Administrative site plan review application.
K. Loading and Storage Areas. Storage and garbage enclosures would be located within
the mixed-use buildings. An alley provides the loading area for Mixed Use Building B.
The specific Administrative site plan review applications for each phase of the Solera
Master Plan would be required to identify compliance with the City’s loading and
storage standards.
L. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking, as the amount
and design of parking is consistent with City regulations. The redevelopment of the Hi-
Lands Shopping Center to the Solera Master Plan would remove the existing expansive
surface parking lots and provide all proposed parking within the mixed-use buildings or
townhome garages. On-street parking would be available on Jefferson Lane NE, NE
11th St., Harrington Pl NE, and NE Sunset Blvd.
For the Master Site Plan level of review the Applicant has generally provided the
number of required parking spaces for the dwelling units and has accounted for parking
for future commercial uses. The Applicant proposes a total of 906 vehicle parking spaces
for the development. The parking requirements for each building and townhome with
regard to quantity and stall dimensions will be verified with each Administrative site
plan review application. The Applicant would be required to demonstrate adequate
parking is provided as each site development plan is more refined in later stages of City
review. The following is a summary of parking proposed by the Applicant for the Master
Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 13
13
The Applicant proposes to provide all parking in structured parking within Mixed Use
Buildings A and B or in individual townhome unit garages. Surface loading spaces are
proposed off Alley Tract C to accommodate the daycare center in Mixed Use Building
B. No parking is proposed between a building and public street.
Proposed Mixed Use Building A would contain 296 dwelling units with approximately
9,800 square feet of gross ground floor commercial. The Applicant has proposed to
provide a total of 378 parking spaces within Mixed Use Building A. The project
summary sheet (Exhibit 37) identifies 329 spaces allocated for the dwelling units and
49 spaces allocated for the ground floor commercial.
Proposed Mixed Use Building B would contain 225 dwelling units, a 5,900 square foot
daycare, and 11,698 square feet of gross floor area of commercial space. The Applicant
has proposed to provide a total of 284 spaces within Mixed Use Building B. The project
summary sheet identifies 229 spaces for the dwelling units, 30 spaces for the ground
floor commercial, and 25 spaces for the daycare.
The proposed unit lot subdivision would provide 152 fee simple townhomes. The
Applicant has proposed 244 parking spaces within the garages of the townhomes.
Additional public parking would be provided via public on street parking along
Jefferson Ave NE, NE 11th St., and the new frontage road proposed off of NE Sunset
Boulevard. These public parking stalls would not be including in the minimum parking
requirements for each development, private off-street parking would be required to be
provided to meet the codes minimum standards.
M. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping as the
Applicant has proposed a general conceptual landscaping plan that staff finds is
sufficient to be implemented to City standards during administrative site plan review.
The conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 36) generally provides a 10-foot wide landscape
strip along public street frontages as required by City standards with the exception of
those areas shown with setback encroachments. Street trees are shown in planter strips
along each right of way as required by City standards including the separated planter
along NE Sunset Blvd. The site does not contain a surface parking lot and therefore no
parking related landscaping would be necessary. Compliance with the street frontage
landscaping and street tree species/spacing would occur as a component of each
individual administrative site plan review application and/or civil construction permit
application.
N. Stormwater. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. A
Preliminary Drainage Plan and Technical Information Report (TIR), dated October
2018, prepared by KPFF Consulting Engineers (Exhibit 15) was submitted with the land
use application. The TIR was reviewed by City Public Works and found to preliminarily
comply with the City’s stormwater standards. Based on the City of Renton’s flow
control map, the site falls within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard area matching
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 14
14
Existing Site Conditions and is within the East Lake Washington Drainage Basin. The
development is subject to Full Drainage Review in accordance with the 2017 Renton
Surface Water Design Manual (RSWDM). All nine core requirements and the six
special requirements have been discussed in the Technical Information Report. The
project is exempt from flow control as the proposed project meets the exception criteria
outlined in RSWDM Section 1.2.3.1.A. The project results in less than a 0.15-cfs
increase in the existing site conditions 100-year peak flow. The development is required
to provide enhanced water quality treatment prior to discharge. The proposed water
quality treatment consists of conveyance to a series of bioretention facilities prior to
connection to the proposed new public conveyance system that would connect to the
existing public conveyance system.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. The hearing examiner has final decision-making authority on the consolidated
applications subject to this decision, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies master site plans and preliminary plats of 10 lots or more as Type III
applications. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies administrative conditional use permits as Type II permits
and street modifications as Type I permits. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each
be processed under “the highest-number procedure.” Consequently, the consolidated master site plan,
preliminary plat, administrative conditional use and street modification applications are subject to
Type III review. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), type III review is subject to hearing and final
decision by the hearing examiner, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Center Village (CV)
and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU).
3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Street Modifications Findings and Conclusions. RMC 4-9-
200(B) authorizes master plan review as an option for all zones except the CA zone. The Applicant
has opted for master plan review and that site plan review will be handled administratively through
phased review of the project. Master plan review is governed by the criteria of RMC 4-9-200(E), with
the caveat that the criteria are to be evaluated “for general compliance with the criteria to ensure that
nothing in the master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the
criteria.” A conditional use permit is required for the proposal because the Applicant proposes to
exceed the maximum building height for the CV zone from 70-feet set by RMC 4-2-120(A) for
buildings with a ground floor commercial use to a maximum of 75-feet for Mixed Use Building A and
a maximum of 85-feet for Mixed Use Building B (Exhibits 41 and 42). Such increases in height are
authorized upon approval of a conditional use permit as specified in Note 16, RMC 4-2-120(C).
Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Chapter 4-7 RMC governs the criteria for
subdivision review. All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through associated
conclusions of law.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 15
15
The street modification request identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250(D).
The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 27 of the staff report are adopted to conclude that the
proposal meets the criteria for the requested modification.
Master Plan
RMC 4-9-200(E)(2). Level of Detail:
a. Master Plans: For master plan applications, the Administrator will evaluate compliance
with the review criteria at a level of detail appropriate for master plans. Master plans will
be evaluated for general compliance with the criteria and to ensure that nothing in the
master plan will preclude development of a site plan in full compliance with the criteria.
b. Site Plans: For site plan applications, the Administrator will analyze the plan in detail
and evaluate compliance with the specific requirements discussed below. (Ord. 5676, 12-3-
2012)
4. As shown in application of the master plan criteria below, the level of detail of master plan
review will be evaluated for general compliance to ensure that nothing in the master plan will preclude
development of a site plan in full compliance with the site plan criteria. As shown in the conditions of
approval, building and infrastructure improvements are approved at a general level of design with more
specific design features to be addressed during site plan review.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in
compliance with the following:
a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,
including:
i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies,
especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any
applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan;
ii. Applicable land use regulations;
iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and
iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100.
5. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan as outlined in
Finding No. 20 of the staff report. The proposal is consistent with the zoning code as outlined in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 16
16
Finding No. 21 of the staff report. The proposal is located in Design District “D” and consistent with
Design District “D” development standards as outlined in Finding No. 22 of the staff report.
No development agreement applies to the project. As to a planned action ordinance, the City’s
Environmental Review Committee determined the Solera Master Plan qualifies as a Planned Action
as the application meets the criteria outlined in an applicable Planned Action Ordinance (Ordinance
#5813). A Planned Action Concurrence Review (Exhibit 2) identified the proposal’s impacts could
be mitigated by measures identified in Attachment B of the Planned Action. Therefore, a condition
of approval requires the Applicant provide implementation procedures for each of the mitigation
measures identified in Attachment B of the Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance #5813 or provide
a written narrative of how the particular measure is not applicable to the project.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and
uses, including:
i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular
portion of the site;
ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and
adjacent properties;
iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop
equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties;
iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to
attractive natural features;
v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding
properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the
project; and
vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive
brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets.
6. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5 and 6, no off-site impacts are
significantly adverse. Specifically, massing of structures is addressed by FOF No. 5(C), circulation by
FOF 6(D) and (E), loading and storage areas by FOF 6(K), views by FOF 5(E), landscaping by FOF
No. 5(C) and lighting by FOF 5(D).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including:
i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing
and orientation;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 17
17
ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural
characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and
vehicle needs;
iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils,
using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and
iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade
and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the
appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so
that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements.
7. The criterion is met. As determined in FOF No. 5 and 6, no on-site impacts are significantly
adverse. Structure placement and scale is addressed in FOF No. 5(F). Extensive landscaping is
required of the project as described in FOF No. 6(M) and this landscaping will serve to provide shade
and privacy and generally improve upon aesthetics as required by the criterion quoted above. The
project provides for adequate vegetative retention by complying with the City’s tree retention
standards as addressed in FOF No. 5(B). Beyond tree retention, there are no other natural features in
need of protection at the project site, since there are no critical areas located at the project site as
determined in FOF No. 5(A).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all
users, including:
i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than
directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when
feasible, with adjacent properties;
ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including
the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking,
turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways;
iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas;
iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and
v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas,
buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties.
8. The criterion is met. Access points are limited to side streets and alleys within the development.
A frontage road along NE Sunset Blvd separated by a planter strip would provide separation and
opportunity to park vehicles along the principal arterial. Internal circulation is safe and efficient for
the reasons outlined in FOF No. 6(F). Loading and delivery would be designed to comply with City
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 18
18
standards, including the standard quoted above, during administrative site plan review as outlined in
FOF No. 6(K). Transit and bicycle facilities are provided and comply with standards as identified in
FOF No. 6(J). Safe and attractive pedestrian connections are provided as determined in FOF No.
6(D) in conjunction with the landscaping identified in FOF No. 6(M).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project
focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users
of the site.
9. As conditioned, the proposal satisfies the criterion quoted above for the reasons identified in
FOF 6(C).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to
shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines.
10. The criterion is met. The proposal does not block any view corridors to Mr. Rainier or shorelines
as determined in FOF No. 5(E).
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural
systems where applicable.
11. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), there are no natural systems
at the project site – the project site has no critical areas and almost the entire site is currently paved.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and
facilities to accommodate the proposed use.
12. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in
Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases
and estimated time frames, for phased projects.
13. As conditioned, the proposal will follow a detailed sequencing plan for phased construction as
identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 and required by the criterion quoted above.
Subdivision
RMC 4-7-080(B): A subdivision shall be consistent with the following principles of acceptability:
1. Legal Lots: Create legal building sites which comply with all provisions of the City Zoning Code.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 19
19
2. Access: Establish access to a public road for each segregated parcel.
3. Physical Characteristics: Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed plat may be denied
because of flood, inundation, or wetland conditions. Construction of protective improvements may
be required as a condition of approval, and such improvements shall be noted on the final plat.
4. Drainage: Make adequate provision for drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public ways, water
supplies and sanitary wastes.
14. As to compliance with the Zoning Code, Finding 21 of the staff report is adopted by reference
as if set forth in full. Each proposed lot will access a public road as depicted in the preliminary plat
map, Ex. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the project is adequately designed to
prevent any impacts to critical areas and will not cause flooding problems as it is not located in a
floodplain critical area and will be served by adequate and appropriate drainage facilities. As
determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the proposal provides for adequate public facilities.
RMC 4-7-080(I)(1): …The Hearing Examiner shall assure conformance with the general purposes
of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted standards…
15. The proposed preliminary play is consistent with the Renton Comprehensive Plan as outlined
in Finding 20 of the staff report, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full.
RMC 4-7-120(A): No plan for the replatting, subdivision, or dedication of any areas shall be
approved by the Hearing Examiner unless the streets shown therein are connected by surfaced road
or street (according to City specifications) to an existing street or highway.
16. The internal roads connect to existing public roads as required by the criterion quoted above
and shown in the site plan, Ex. 3, for the project.
RMC 4-7-120(B): The location of all streets shall conform to any adopted plans for streets in the
City.
17. City staff have reviewed the proposal for consistency with City road plans and found the
proposed roads to be consistent.
RMC 4-7-120(C): If a subdivision is located in the area of an officially designed [sic] trail,
provisions shall be made for reservation of the right-of-way or for easements to the City for trail
purposes.
18. There are no officially designated trails in the vicinity of the project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 20
20
RMC 4-7-130(C): A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication shall be prepared in conformance
with the following provisions:
1. Land Unsuitable for Subdivision: Land which is found to be unsuitable for subdivision includes
land with features likely to be harmful to the safety and general health of the future residents (such
as lands adversely affected by flooding, steep slopes, or rock formations). Land which the Department
or the Hearing Examiner considers inappropriate for subdivision shall not be subdivided unless
adequate safeguards are provided against these adverse conditions.
a. Flooding/Inundation: If any portion of the land within the boundary of a preliminary plat is subject
to flooding or inundation, that portion of the subdivision must have the approval of the State
according to chapter 86.16 RCW before the Department and the Hearing Examiner shall consider
such subdivision.
b. Steep Slopes: A plat, short plat, subdivision or dedication which would result in the creation of a
lot or lots that primarily have slopes forty percent (40%) or greater as measured per RMC 4-3-
050J1a, without adequate area at lesser slopes upon which development may occur, shall not be
approved.
…
3. Land Clearing and Tree Retention: Shall comply with RMC 4-4-130, Tree Retention and Land
Clearing Regulations.
4. Streams:
a. Preservation: Every reasonable effort shall be made to preserve existing streams, bodies of water,
and wetland areas.
b. Method: If a stream passes through any of the subject property, a plan shall be presented which
indicates how the stream will be preserved. The methodologies used should include an overflow area,
and an attempt to minimize the disturbance of the natural channel and stream bed.
c. Culverting: The piping or tunneling of water shall be discouraged and allowed only when going
under streets.
d. Clean Water: Every effort shall be made to keep all streams and bodies of water clear of debris
and pollutants.
19. The land is suitable for a subdivision as the stormwater design assures that it will not contribute
to flooding and there are no critical areas on-site. No piping or tunneling of streams is proposed.
Trees will be retained as required by RMC 4-4-130 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. No lots
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 21
21
primarily composed of steep slopes will be created by the subdivision since there are no steep slopes
at the project site.
RMC 4-7-140: Approval of all subdivisions located in either single family residential or multi-
family residential zones as defined in the Zoning Code shall be contingent upon the subdivider’s
dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the City, all as necessary to mitigate the
adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. The requirements
and procedures for this mitigation shall be per the City of Renton Parks Mitigation Resolution.
20. The criterion is met. City ordinances require the payment of park impact fees prior to building
permit issuance. Also, as elaborated upon in FOF No. 6(C), the Applicant is proposing several open
space and recreational amenities that staff will assure meets applicable open space and recreational
space requirements during administrative site plan review.
RMC 4-7-150(A): The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing
streets unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to approving a street
system that does not extend or connect, the Reviewing Official shall find that such exception shall
meet the requirements of subsection E3 of this Section. The roadway classifications shall be as
defined and designated by the Department.
21. The criterion is met. As part of the proposal, the Applicant would construct a new public street
system meeting current City standards to serve the new lots. Jefferson Ave/Lane NE would extend
perpendicular from NE 10th St and traverse through the property providing a spine road through the
property. Harrington Pl NE would turn east and become NE 11th St and provide an east/west
connection through the development linking to NE Sunset Blvd. The proposed street layout would
mimic the recently constructed Sunset Lane NE capital improvements abutting the site to the south
with two (2) ten-foot travel lanes, parking lane, curbs, curb bulbs, raised concrete intersection, planter
strips, and sidewalks. The new streets provide connectivity to the existing street system and would
be constructed in the initial phase of the master plan.
Based on the street alignment, portions of existing right-of-way would need to be vacated. Therefore,
a condition of approval requires that the Applicant complete the street vacation process with City
Council prior to civil construction permit issuance.
RMC 4-7-150(B): All proposed street names shall be approved by the City.
22. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-150(C): Streets intersecting with existing or proposed public highways, major or
secondary arterials shall be held to a minimum.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 22
22
23. The criterion is met. The only major arterial fronting the project is NE Sunset Blvd, which is
classified as a principal arterial. NE 12t St., the only other frontage arterial, is classified as a collector
arterial. The project avoids a direct connection to NE Sunset Blvd by the proposed frontage road.
RMC 4-7-150(D): The alignment of all streets shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department. The street standards set by RMC 4-6-060 shall apply unless otherwise approved. Street
alignment offsets of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') are not desirable, but may be
approved by the Department upon a showing of need but only after provision of all necessary safety
measures.
24. As determined in Finding of Fact 6, the Public Works Department has reviewed and approved
the adequacy of streets, which includes compliance with applicable street standards and acceptable
street alignment.
RMC 4-7-150(E):
1. Grid: A grid street pattern shall be used to connect existing and new development and shall be the
predominant street pattern in any subdivision permitted by this Section.
2. Linkages: Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within
and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads
and pathways. Implementation of this requirement shall comply with Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element Objective T-A and Policies T-9 through T-16 and Community Design
Element, Objective CD-M and Policies CD-50 and CD-60.
3. Exceptions:
a. The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “flexible grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the
alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
i. Infeasible due to topographical/environmental constraints; and/or
ii. Substantial improvements are existing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 23
23
4. Connections: Prior to adoption of a complete grid street plan, reasonable connections that link
existing portions of the grid system shall be made. At a minimum, stub streets shall be required within
subdivisions to allow future connectivity.
5. Alley Access: Alley access is the preferred street pattern except for properties in the Residential
Low Density land use designation. The Residential Low Density land use designation includes the
RC, R-1, and R-4 zones. Prior to approval of a plat without alley access, the Reviewing Official shall
evaluate an alley layout and determine that the use of alley(s) is not feasible…
6. Alternative Configurations: Offset or loop roads are the preferred alternative configurations.
7. Cul-de-Sac Streets: Cul-de-sac streets may only be permitted by the Reviewing Official where due
to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically
possible.
25. The criterion is met. The proposed subdivision is not a typical single-family residential
preliminary plat that would contain a rectangular grid with two-tiered lots, however the Solar Master
Plan does follow the intent and share traits of a two-tiered subdivision. The proposed subdivision
would result in four (4) blocks (Exhibit 33) created by the north/south Jefferson Ave/Lane NE and
east/west NE 11th St street improvements constructed by the Applicant. The blocks south of NE 11th
St (MU1 and R1-R3) are tiered by alley tracts A through E. The blocks north of NE 11th St (MU2,
R3-R4) are tiered by alley tracts B and G. Alley vehicular access is proposed for the residences as
encouraged by the criteria quoted above. No cul-de-sacs are proposed.
RMC 4-7-150(F): All adjacent rights-of-way and new rights-of-way dedicated as part of the plat,
including streets, roads, and alleys, shall be graded to their full width and the pavement and
sidewalks shall be constructed as specified in the street standards or deferred by the
Planning/Building/Public Works Administrator or his/her designee.
26. As proposed except for the street modification approved by this decision.
RMC 4-7-150(G): Streets that may be extended in the event of future adjacent platting shall be
required to be dedicated to the plat boundary line. Extensions of greater depth than an average lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 24
24
shall be improved with temporary turnarounds. Dedication of a full-width boundary street shall be
required in certain instances to facilitate future development.
27. Not applicable. All adjoining properties appear to be fully platted.
RMC 4-7-170(A): Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial
to curved street lines.
28. As depicted in the plat map, Ex. 5, the side lines are generally in conformance with the
requirement quoted above.
RMC 4-7-170(B): Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Access may be by private
access easement street per the requirements of the street standards.
29. As previously determined, each lot has access to a public street.
RMC 4-7-170(C): The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width
requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of
development and use contemplated. Further subdivision of lots within a plat approved through the
provisions of this Chapter must be consistent with the then-current applicable maximum density
requirement as measured within the plat as a whole.
30. As previously determined, the proposal complies with the zoning code, which includes lot area
and width and density.
RMC 4-7-170(D): Width between side lot lines at their foremost points (i.e., the points where the
side lot lines intersect with the street right-of-way line) shall not be less than eighty percent (80%) of
the required lot width except in the cases of (1) pipestem lots, which shall have a minimum width of
twenty feet (20') and (2) lots on a street curve or the turning circle of cul-de-sac (radial lots), which
shall be a minimum of thirty five feet (35').
31. As shown in the plat map, Ex. 5, the requirement is satisfied.
RMC 4-7-170(E): All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys,
shall have minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
32. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-190(A): Due regard shall be shown to all natural features such as large trees,
watercourses, and similar community assets. Such natural features should be preserved, thereby
adding attractiveness and value to the property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 25
25
33. There are no significant on-site natural features.
RMC 4-7-200(A): Unless septic tanks are specifically approved by the Public Works Department
and the King County Health Department, sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no
cost to the City and designed in accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed
eight feet (8') into each lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivisi on
development.
34. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(B): An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all
surface water. Cross drains shall be provided to accommodate all natural water flow and shall be of
sufficient length to permit full-width roadway and required slopes. The drainage system shall be
designed per the requirements of RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards. The drainage
system shall include detention capacity for the new street areas. Residential plats shall also include
detention capacity for future development of the lots. Water quality features shall also be designed
to provide capacity for the new street paving for the plat.
35. The proposal provides for adequate drainage that is in conformance with applicable City drainage
standards as determined in Finding of Fact No. 6. The City’s stormwater standards, which are
addressed in the Applicant’s technical information report and will be further implemented during
administrative site plan review, ensure compliance with all of the standards in the criterion quoted
above.
RMC 4-7-200(C): The water distribution system including the locations of fire hydrants shall be
designed and installed in accordance with City standards as defined by the Department and Fire
Department requirements.
36. These requirements will be imposed during engineering review for final plat approval.
RMC 4-7-200(D): All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any
utilities installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed, including all
service connections, as approved by the Department. Such installation shall be completed and
approved prior to the application of any surface material. Easements may be required for the
maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by the Department.
37. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-200(E): Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic
utilities are installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 26
26
by subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or alley
improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The cost of
trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore required to
bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land owner. The subdivider
shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development. Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final
ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company shall provide maps and specifications to the
subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and certify to the City that it is properly installed.
38. As conditioned.
RMC 4-7-210:
A. MONUMENTS:
Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling corner of
the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the Department. All surveys
shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards.
B. SURVEY:
All other lot corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards.
C. STREET SIGNS:
The subdivider shall install all street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
39. As conditioned.
Conditional Use
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 27
27
The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following
factors for all applications:
RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be
compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the
zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton.
40. As conditioned, the proposal as a whole is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan
policies and development standards as outlined in Findings of Fact No. 20-25 of the staff report,
adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. Specifically, as applied to the height request, the
proposal is also consistent with comprehensive plan and development objectives. The redevelopment
of the existing Hi-Lands Shopping Center, a strip commercial development with expansive surface
parking, into a compact urban development with pedestrian oriented and mixed-use features is a
policy objective of the Comprehensive Plan’s Commercial Mixed-Use land use designation and
Center Village (CV) zone. The height increase along the NE Sunset Blvd frontage allows more
density to be provided along the neighborhood principal arterial and major thoroughfare thereby
allowing a transition of lesser density townhomes as the development pattern tends to follow less
intensive residential uses further out from NE Sunset Blvd.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the
detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the
proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
41. The criterion is met. The requested height allowance would not be a detrimental
overconcentration and the location is suited for the increased height. As mentioned above, the
Comprehensive Plan anticipates this type of redevelopment along NE Sunset Blvd and as stated by
the Applicant, the increase in height would remain within the density limitations of the CV zone. The
proposed mixed-use buildings would provide market rate and senior housing to the area, neither of
which would contribute to an overconcentration of their respective uses in the Sunset neighborhood.
The mixed-use buildings would be located on NE Sunset Blvd, a principal arterial, the most intensive
street classification within the City and therefore contains sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic
generated by the development. The property abuts a King County Metro Transit stop that is planned
to be updated to a RapidRide stop (Exhibit 23) that would provide more frequent transit options for
the increased density to the area.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location
shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
42. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), as conditioned, the proposed increase in height will
not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 28
28
RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
43. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5(C).
RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
44. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6(L), the proposal includes parking that is consistent with
applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
45. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6(F), the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate
traffic mitigation and facilities.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
46. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(G), the proposal will not result in any adverse light,
noise or glare impacts.
RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
47. As shown in the conceptual landscape plans for the proposal, Ex. 36, all undeveloped portions
of the site are landscaped.
DECISION
For the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law, above, as conditioned all applicable review
criteria for the Applicant’s master plan, preliminary plat, conditional use and street modification are
met by the proposal. All permit applications are approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall submit revised plans with the administrative site plan review application
for Block B that ensures any proposed amenity space is temporary in nature and not credited to
the open space requirement under Urban Design Regulations District D. The Applicant shall
construct the space to commercial standards identified in FOF 26 Conditional Use Analysis.
The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to Administrative Site Plan issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 29
29
2. The Applicant shall record a covenant on the underlying properties within the plat requiring
that any future division of the lots or increases to density must be consistent with the maximum
density requirements as measured within the master site plan as a whole. The Applicant shall
submit a draft of the covenant with the final plat application for review and approval by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to recording with the King County Recorder’s Office.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 30
30
3. The Applicant shall submit a revised master site plan for parent site R1 that contains a
minimum lot size of 25,000 square feet. The revised parent site plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Administrative Site Plan
issuance or construction permit issuance, whichever occurs first.
4. The Applicant shall raise the ground floor of the townhome units on Mixed Use Building
‘A’ a minimum of three (3) feet above the grade of the Jefferson Ave NE sidewalk and
provide an elevated stoop entrance for each unit. These ground level features shall be shown
on the elevation plans submitted with the Administrative site plan review application to be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
Alternative measures to those required by this condition may be approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager to the extent that those measures effectively mitigate against the
setback reductions requested by the Applicant.
5. The Applicant shall raise the ground floor of the units in the three (3) townhome unit cluster
buildings in Block R3 a minimum of three (3) feet above the grade of the NE 11th St and
Harrington Pl NE sidewalk and provide an elevated stoop entrance for each unit.
Additionally, the Applicant shall provide articulation, materials, and glazing, beyond what
is required by the R-10 and R-14 Residential Design and Open Space Standards, along the
side elevations of the townhomes facing the street that is similar to a front elevation. These
ground level features and additional exterior side wall articulation shall be shown on the
elevation plans submitted with the Administrative site plan review application for Block 3
to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. Alternative
measures to those required by this condition may be approved by the Current Planning
Project Manager to the extent that those measures effectively mitigate against the setback
reductions requested by the Applicant.
6. The Applicant shall submit building coverage calculations with an exhibit graphic that
identifies compliance with the 75-percent lot coverage limitation for each parent site and
mixed-use lot with each Administrative site plan review application. The building coverage
calculations shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to Administrative Site Plan issuance.
7. The Applicant shall submit a revised arborist report and tree retention plan with the civil
construction permit application that considers the retention of trees 856-859 and 862-863.
The arborist report shall identify best practices for working in and around drip lines of the
retained trees. The revised arborist report and tree retention plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior the permit issuance.
8. The Applicant shall submit a refuse and recycling plan with the Administrative Site Plan
applications for each unit lot subdivision block that identifies the required refuse and
recycling space for each townhome unit and the exterior space allocated for pick-up day.
Additionally, the Applicant shall provide written approval from the City’s refuse and
recycling contracted collector that adequate space for truck maneuvering is provided. The
refuse and recycling plans and refuse/recycling written approvals shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Manager prior site plan issuance.
9. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plans with the Administrative site plan review
application for Building ‘B’ that limits residential entries to the NE 11th St frontage. The
revised floor plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to site plan issuance.
10. The Applicant shall submit a cohesive sign package for the master plan site with the initial
administrative site plan review application. The sign package shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 31
31
11. The Applicant shall submit a revised master plan prior to the first Administrative site plan
review application or construction permit application, whichever occurs first, that clearly
indicates the amount of common open space meeting the standards of RMC 4-2.115E.2 and
RMC 4-3-100E.4 or where applicable RMC 4-1-240B.3, if approved. A fee-in-lieu shall be
paid prior to the issuance of the civil construction permit. The revised master plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the first
Administrative Site Plan or construction permit issuance.
12. The Applicant shall submit an exhibit for each townhome unit with their respective
Administrative site plan review application that clearly identifies that each unit lot contains
a minimum of 250 square feet of private yard space with no dimension less than 8-feet in
width. The exhibits shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to each individual Administrative Site Plan issuance for Blocks R1-R4.
13. The Applicant shall submit a revised master site plan to identify that Lots 7-12, 46, 54, 57,
66, 69, 116, and 125 comply with primary entry requirements of RMC 4-2-115E.2 and 3.
The revised master site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project
Manager prior to Administrative Site Plan issuance or construction permit issuance,
whichever occurs first.
14. The Applicant shall provide implementation procedures for each of the mitigation measures
identified in Attachment B of the Sunset Area Planned Action Ordinance #5813 or provide
a written narrative of how the particular measure is not applicable to the project. The
Planned Action mitigation implementation procedures shall be submitted with each
Administrative site plan review application for review and approval by the Current Planning
Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
15. The Applicant shall submit a minor modification application to remove the Piha site from
the Renton Sunset Terrace Redevelopment Master Plan (LUA14 -001475). The minor
modification application shall be submitted and decision issued prior to the Applicant
submitting the Administrative site plan review application for this respective phase of the
master plan. The minor modification application shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance.
16. The Applicant shall submit revised site plans for the unit lot townhomes with each
Administrative site plan review application that aligns pedestrian connections across vehicle
alleys and provides delineated pedestrian crossings with paving that contrasts with the
asphalt paving of the alley. The revised site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Current Planning Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
17. The Applicant shall coordinate with King County Metro Transit for RapidRide
improvements at bus stop #45145 on NE Sunset Blvd. Those improvements include, but are
not limited to, shelter footings at the bus stop and conduit to support RapidRide signage and
lighting. Coordination of those improvements with King County Metro Transit shall be
shown on the civil construction permit application to be reviewed and approved by th e
Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 32
32
18. The Applicant shall follow the Phasing Plan as provided in Exhibit 12 in order of phasing
number. Construction activities on the townhome components of the Master Plan that follow
a mixed-use building phase shall not be permitted until the mixed use building concrete
podium is completed and passed inspection. In lieu of a concrete podium, construction may
follow a mixed-use building phase when shoring walls and foundation excavation are
completed for the mixed use building along with a receipt of either cash set aside, a letter
of credit, or an assignment of funds approved by the city for the entire cost of the mixed-
use building. Any requested modifications of the phasing plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Current Planning Project Manager and shall continue to result in the initial
phase of construction to include one of the two mixed use buildings and public infrastructure
improvements identified in orange on the phasing plan.
19. The Applicant shall submit a street modification request to modify the Unit Lot Drive
standards and provide the private alley sections as shown on the townhome unit lot
subdivision. The street modification decision shall be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager and shall be issued prior to the submittal of the construction
permit application.
20. The Applicant shall ensure irrevocable access to Alley Tract C for Mixed Use Building B.
The irrevocable access shall be noted on the final plat documents and recorded as an access
easement with the King County Recorder’s Office. The irrevocable access language shall
be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat
recording. The access easement shall be recorded with the King County Recorder’s office
with the final plat.
21. The Applicant shall prepare an irrevocable access and parking agreement with Mixed Use
Building ‘A’ and the US Bank building. The access and parking agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to final plat
recording. The access and parking agreement shall be recorded with the King County
Recorder’s Office with the final plat.
22. The Applicant shall receive preliminary approval of the necessary street vacation(s) from
City Council prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. Final approval of the street
vacation(s) shall be completed prior to plat recording.
23. The Applicant shall provide modulations (both vertical and horizontal) on Mixed Use
Buildings A and B beyond what is required by Design District D regulations. The exterior
cladding and articulation on each building shall be a diverse mix of high quality materials
that is commensurate to the overall size and scale of the building. The buildings shall
incorporate upper story setbacks, roof extension features, extended feature elements on the
buildings’ corners abutting NE 11th St and NE Sunset Blvd, or other articulation beyond
what is already required in the Urban Design District ‘D’ Regulations. These modulation
and articulation features shall be shown on colored elevation sheets and represented on
three-dimensional renderings to be submitted with their respective Administrative site plan
review applications to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager
prior to site plan issuance.
24. The Applicant shall provide one (1) of the following ground level treatments to Mixed Use
Buildings A and B along NE Sunset Blvd: (1) the floor to finished ceiling height shall be a
minimum of 18-feet; or (2) the floor to finished ceiling height shall be a minimum of 15-
feet and the residential portion of the buildings (wood construction) on top of the concrete
podium be setback a minimum of 15-feet. The ground level details shall be shown on the
Administrative site plan review application to be reviewed and approved by the Current
Planning Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 33
33
25. The Applicant shall submit elevations with the Administrative site plan review application
that provides a minimum setback of 15-feet for the portion of Building ‘A’ above the ground
floor townhome units along the Jefferson Ave NE elevation. The elevations shall be
reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to site plan issuance.
26. The Applicant shall submit revised utility plans with the civil construction permit that
provides a concrete tabled intersection at Jefferson Ave NE and NE 11th St. The revised
utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior
to civil construction permit issuance.
27. All road names shall be approved by the City.
28. Sanitary sewers shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the City and designed in
accordance with City standards. Side sewer lines shall be installed eight feet (8') into each
lot if sanitary sewer mains are available, or provided with the subdivision development.
29. Concrete permanent control monuments shall be established at each and every controlling
corner of the subdivision. Interior monuments shall be located as determined by the
Department. All surveys shall be per the City of Renton surveying standards. All other lot
corners shall be marked per the City surveying standards. The subdivider shall install all
street name signs necessary in the subdivision.
30. All utilities designed to serve the subdivision shall be placed underground. Any utilities
installed in the parking strip shall be placed in such a manner and depth to permit the
planting of trees. Those utilities to be located beneath paved surfaces shall be installed,
including all service connections, as approved by the Public Works Department. Such
installation shall be completed and approved prior to the application of any surface material.
Easements may be required for the maintenance and operation of utilities as specified by
the Public Works Department.
31. Any cable TV conduits shall be undergrounded at the same time as other basic utilities are
installed to serve each lot. Conduit for service connections shall be laid to each lot line by
subdivider as to obviate the necessity for disturbing the street area, including sidewalks, or
alley improvements when such service connections are extended to serve any building. The
cost of trenching, conduit, pedestals and/or vaults and laterals as well as easements therefore
required to bring service to the development shall be borne by the developer and/or land
owner. The subdivider shall be responsible only for conduit to serve his development.
Conduit ends shall be elbowed to final ground elevation and capped. The cable TV company
shall provide maps and specifications to the subdivider and shall inspect the conduit and
certify to the City that it is properly installed.
32. All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have
minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').
Decision issued December 11, 2018.
Hearing Examiner
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MASTER PLAN, PRELIMINARY PLAT, CU and SM
CAO VARIANCE - 34
34
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing
examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision.
A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
period.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.