Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda AGENDA Planning & Development Committee Regular Meeting 3:00 PM - Thursday, February 11, 2016 Council Conference Room, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way 1. DOCKET 11 a) D-121 Downtown Business District Staff Report D-121 PowerPoint b) D-122 Impact Fee Deferral Staff Report D-122 PowerPoint c) D-123 Setbacks in Commercial Zones Staff Report D-123 PowerPoint d) D-124 Subarea, Community and District Plans Staff Report D-124 PowerPoint e) D-125 Assisted Living Staff Report D-125 PowerPoint f) D-126 Administrative Code Interpretations Staff Report D-126 PowerPoint 2. EMERGING ISSUES a) Quendall Terminals Summary b) Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternate P3.1 c) Quendall Terminals Preferred Alternate Overhead d) Quendall P1.0 e) Preferred Alternate P3.0 C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-121 Staff Report.docx October 21, 2015 D# 121 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT General Description There are different ways that the City’s Downtown is mapped in City Code. This can be challenging, as well as confusing for staff and applicants in the administration of the Code. This docket item seeks to adopt the mapped area identified by the Planning Commission and City Center Community Plan Advisory Board in 2014. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities created by the proposed changes Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employment growth created by the proposed changes. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The Vision seeks a “revitalized Downtown that functions as a 24-hour living, working, and entertainment area” that “will emerge through planning for a balance of residential, commercial, and office uses with a distinctive, local identity”. It would be beneficial to have clarity regarding what specific area constitutes the Downtown Business area. Effect on general land values or housing costs Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs created by the proposed map changes. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies The proposed map changes are consistent with the statewide Growth Management Act and City Comprehensive Plan which call for sound planning. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands Mapping the Downtown will not have any effect on how critical areas and natural resource lands are managed. AGENDA ITEM #1. a) #D-121 Discussio Within R are requi 4.2.080D walkway South, an South.” A Another that wou definition should sh on enton Muni ired of prop D (shown in t ys along eith nd along eith As is shown concern wit uld be includ n, it is intend how those p cipal Code t erties that a tan) and is d er side of So her side of W in the map a th the map a ed within th ded to includ parcels. here are ma are within th efined in 4.1 outh Third St Wells Avenue at right, the as it is curren he Pedestria de the parce Page 2 of 4 any referenc e “Downtow 11.040 (show treet betwee e South betw mapped are ntly adopted n District, on els that abut es to uses th wn Pedestria wn in yellow en Burnett A ween South S ea and the d d is that it do nly streets. t specified st hat are allow an District”. w) as: “Those venue South Second Stree defined area oes not indic According to treets. So, t October 21 wed or thing It is mappe e uses, buildi h and Main A et and House do not mat cate actual p o the Code he map in th 1, 2015 gs that d in ings and Avenue er Way ch. parcels he Code AGENDA ITEM #1. a) #D-121 In 2013, t reviewed recomme requeste “consider House, V consider Core”. the Planning d the maps a ended boun ed that both r including b VFW, and Ser a boundary g Commissio and the Plan dary is show bodies cont businesses al rvice Linen; e for a second on and the C ning Commi wn below. Th tinue their w long the bou evaluate the d tier (sphere Page 3 of 4 ity Center C ission made he Council’s work and con undary of the e western bo e of influenc ommunity P a recomme s Planning an nsider the fo e Downtown oundary on [S ce) around th Plan Advisory ndation to C nd Developm ollowing fact n Business C [South] 3rd St he Downtow October 21 y Board Council. The ment Commi tors as guida Core (such as treet; and wn Business AGENDA ITEM #1. a) #D-121: Downtown Business DistrictDatePlanning CommissionOctober 19, 2015AGENDA ITEM #1. •Mapping of Downtown in Code is inconsistent•2013, recommendation forwarded to Council•2014, further review by Planning Commission and City Center Community Plan Advisory Board•Bringing recommendation forwardBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1. BackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1. Background•2013 recommendationAGENDA ITEM #1. •The Planning and Development Committee asked that the Commission and CCCPAB–“consider including businesses along the boundary of the Downtown Business Core (such as Red House, VFW, and Service Linen; evaluate the western boundary on [South] 3rd Street; and consider a boundary for a second tier (sphere of influence) around the Downtown Business Core”BackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1. •Planning Commission and CCCPAB walked the Downtown to consider the boundary–Determined that concentrated area is most advantageous, at this point in time–Downtown Business District, not just Pedestrian DistrictBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1. •Adopt Planning Commission and CCCPAB recommended Downtown Business District Staff RecommendationAGENDA ITEM #1. Next Steps•Public Hearing–January 6, 2016•Deliberations and Recommendation–January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1. C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-122 Staff Report.docx October 21, 2015 #D-122 IMPACT FEE DEFERRAL General Description In May 2015, the State Legislature passed legislation that requires jurisdictions to allow the payment of impact fees to be deferred. The legislation also provided options for the point at which the fees are collected and included school impact fees as an impact fee that can be deferred. The City’s Code needs to be amended to address these changes. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan Not applicable. There is no anticipated effect on the rate of growth, development, and the conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan. Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the City's capacity to provide adequate public facilities created by the proposed changes Effect on the rate of population and employment growth Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on the rate of population and employement growth created by the proposed changes. Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable The Plan seeks to comply with State law. Effect on general land values or housing costs Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on general land values or housing costs created by the proposed map changes. Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected Not applicable. Consistency with GMA and Countywide Planning Policies Impact fees are consistent with GMA because by State law jurisdictions that have adopted plans through GMA are allowed to charge impact fees. The Legislature amended the RCW related to impact fees, the proposed amendments seek to ensure that the City is consistent with the new regulations. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands Not applicable. There are no anticipated effects on critical areas and natural resource lands. Discussion The City currently charges impact fees for Transportation, Parks, and Fire and allows for all of those fees to be deferred until “the earlier of seven calendar days after the date of sale . . . or eighteen months after the issuance of the original building permit”. The City also charges school impact fees for Renton, Issaquah, and Kent School Districts, but does not allow the fees AGENDA ITEM #1. b) #D-122 Page 2 of 2 October 21, 2015 to be deferred. This year, the Legislature amended the RCW’s related to impact fees in the following significant ways: 1. All jurisdiction that collect impact fees must allow deferral for impact fees. 2. School impact fees can be deferred. 3. Fees can be deferred until the earlier of eighteen months or at the time of: a. Final inspection b. Certificate of occupancy, or c. At the time of closing d. (jurisdictions choose one of the above). 4. Allows for school districts to initiate foreclosure proceedings if the City doesn’t on a property where fees are not paid. 5. Sets an annual limit of twenty deferrals per applicant; however jurisdictions can set a higher limit. If a jurisdiction sets a higher limit, it must consult with the school districts and “give substantial weight” to the recommendation of each school district. If the jurisdiction disagrees, it must provide a written rationale for its decision. The City needs to amend its code related to both impact fees and school impact fees in order to bring City code in line with State regulations. There are two policy decisions that the City needs to make related to the changes. In regards to the point at which fees can be deferred until, staff recommends collecting them at the time of closing (or eighteen months if it comes before closing). This is the most similar to the existing regulation for deferral of Transportation, Fire, and Parks impact fees. For those fees, the current code requires payment within seven days of sale. Staff is concerned about tracking where a project is in the development process in relation to eighteen months. With a lien filed on the property during the closing process, the title company will check for liens to ensure clear title. Using the option of at the time of closing provides the most reasonable certainty that deferred fees will be collected, if they are not paid at eighteen months and only requires the City to track the eighteen month time period. In regards to setting an annual limit, staff recommends not setting a higher limit. The City regards twenty deferrals as adequate. Additionally, to set a higher limit, the requirements to get there indicate that the preference for school districts is twenty. That number is acceptable to the City. AGENDA ITEM #1. b) #D-122: Impact Fee DeferralDatePlanning CommissionOctober 19, 2015AGENDA ITEM #1. •State Legislature amended regulations regarding deferral of impact fees•School impact fees can now be deferred–Requires City to amend CodeBackgroundAGENDA ITEM #1. Background•Two policy decisions–When to allow fees to be deferred until•The earlier of 18 months or at the time of:–Final inspection–Certificate of occupancy, or –At the time of closing–Number of deferrals allowed•20 (or more)AGENDA ITEM #1. Staff Recommendation•Defer fees until the earlier of 18 months or the time of closing–Provides the best certainty that deferred fees would be collected–Title company will do a title search and liens would be resolved to ensure clean titleAGENDA ITEM #1. Staff Recommendation•Retain the limit of 20 deferrals per year allowed by State law–To allow a greater number requires notification to School Districts and rationale for alternate number–20 is adequate and acceptable to CityAGENDA ITEM #1. Staff Recommendation•Four additional policy decisions identified during code consolidation–Allow assertion that fees have been incorrectly assessed–Strike school impact fee requirement that request for credit be within 20 days of building permit application–Appeals to Hearing Examiner for all fees–Amend replacement of dwelling unit exemption timeframe from 12 months to 36 monthsAGENDA ITEM #1. Next Steps•Public Hearing–January 6, 2016•Deliberations and Recommendation–January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1. c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\d-123 staff rpt.docx November 4, 2015 #D-123 SETBACKS IN COMMERCIAL ZONES General Description Staff was directed to review building setbacks in commercial zones with consideration of the effect on the public realm and other development regulations. CN, CV, and CA Zones Planners who implement Title IV regulations have noted the difficulty in requiring a ten feet- wide landscaping strip and a minimum five feet-wide pedestrian walkway within any given lot due to the maximum setback of 15 feet in the CN, CV, and CA zones. The building located at 175 Rainier Ave South (occupied by AutoZone) is a prime example of the constraint resulting from the provision of a landscaping strip and pedestrian walkway within the maximum allowed setback of 15 feet (shown below). The combination of these development regulations limits a developer to an exact setback of 15 feet with no ability to accommodate site constraints or underground utilities that are often located in front of a building. 15’ AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Page 2 of 4 November 4, 2015 In addition to a conflict of development regulations, staff considers this particular building to be too close to the public right-of-way despite it being set back the maximum distance. Below is a “street view” image of the building for reference. Staff proposes increasing the minimum front yard and side yard along a street (i.e., secondary frontage on corner lots) setbacks of the CN, CV, and CA zones from ten feet to fifteen feet, and increasing the maximum setback distance to 20 feet. UC Zone Staff has also noted the obsolescence of the current UC zone setbacks. RMC 4-9-200.B.1, Master Plan Review, requires all development within the UC and COR zones be governed by a Master Plan. While setbacks of the COR zone are “determined through site plan review,” front yard setbacks of the UC zone are prescribed as five feet for townhouses and zero feet for all other development. However, because all aspects of a UC zone development are determined through Master Plan Review, providing setback standards is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, staff proposes setbacks for the UC zone be “determined through site plan review.” Conclusion Staff did not identify other commercial setbacks that should be revised. For reference, the current front and side yard along a street (i.e., secondary frontage on corner lots) setbacks for commercial zones are as follows (footnotes were omitted for simplicity): AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Page 3 of 4 November 4, 2015 Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan N/A Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities N/A Effect on the rate of population and employment growth N/A Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable N/A Effect on general land values or housing costs N/A CN CV CA UC CD CO COR Minimum Front Setback 10' Townhouses: 5’ All other uses: 0’ none Residential Mixed Use Buildings: 0’ Buildings less than 25’ in height: 15’ Buildings 25’ to 80’ in height: 20’ Buildings over 80’ in height: 30’ Determined through site plan review. Maximum Front Setback 15' 5’ 15' for buildings 25' or less in height Mixed use: 15’ other: 0’ Determined through site plan review. Minimum Side Yard Along a Street 15’ Townhouses: 10’ All other uses: 0’ none Residential Mixed Use Buildings: 0’ Buildings less than 25’ in height: 15’ Buildings 25’ to 80’ in height: 20’ Buildings over 80’ in height: 30’ Determined through site plan review. Maximum Side Yard Along a Street n/a 5’ 15’ for buildings 25’ or less in height Mixed use: 15' other: 0' Determined through site plan review. AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Page 4 of 4 November 4, 2015 Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies N/A Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation Amend Renton Municipal Code as described to increase the minimum and maximum setbacks of the CN, CV, and CA zones to 15 feet and 20 feet respectively. Staff also proposes that all setbacks for the UC zone be “determined through site plan review.” Implementation Requirements Adopt an ordinance amending RMC 4-2-120.A, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations (CN, CV, CA, & UC), and RMC 4-2-120.B, Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations (CD, CO, & COR). AGENDA ITEM #1. c) Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#123:SETBACKS INCOMMERCIALZONESAGENDA ITEM #1. CN, CV, ANDCA ZONES15’AGENDA ITEM #1. UC ZONECredit: 425magazine.comCredit: northeastsuites.comCredit: bizjournals.comAGENDA ITEM #1. Public Hearing: Shall conclude on 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m.Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #1. #D-124 SUBAREA, COMMUNITY, AND DISTRICT PLANS General Description Subarea, community, and district plans adopted by the City must be consistent with policies under the Comprehensive Plan and implementing Renton Municipal Code. Due to the adoption of a revised Comprehensive Plan in June 2015, plans must be reviewed for consistency. If they are found to be inconsistent, rectifying recommendations must be provided. This is also an opportunity to review plans for general relevancy. Initial review of this issue indicates there are several types of plans. First are plans “adopted by reference” in RMC 4-4-030.B. Renton Municipal Code 4-4-030.B: “Adoption by Reference,” states, “The goals, objectives, and policies as set forth in the following documents and related studies or documents are presently in force or as modified from time to time are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be considered as if fully set forth herein.” There may also be plans “adopted by reference” elsewhere in the Renton Municipal Code, but not included in RMC 4-4-030.B. Plans adopted by reference in RMC 4-4-030.B are two types: City of Renton initiated plans or plans generated by King County agencies. The City of Renton plans are: • Cedar River Master Plan • Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan • Green River Valley Plan • Fire Department Master Plan • Airport Master Plan • Comprehensive Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan • Comprehensive Water System Plan • Long Range Wastewater Management Plan • Shoreline Master Program • Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan • Street Arterial Plan • Traffic Mitigation Resolution and Fee • Parks Mitigation Resolution and Fee • Fire Mitigation Resolution and Fee • Comprehensive Plan (Ord. 5526, 2-1-2010) The King County plans are: • King County Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) • King County Solid Waste Management Plan • Countywide Planning Policies A third classification of plan includes plans adopted by the City, but not included in RMC 4-4- 030.B as adopted by reference. These include: • Renton Municipal Airport Compatible Land Use Program • South Renton Neighborhood Plan AGENDA ITEM #1. d) #D-124 • Highlands Subarea Plan • Renton Automall Improvement Plan • Soos Creek Community Plan Work to complete this docket item will included the following tasks: • Determination if there were plans adopted by reference in the Renton Municipal Code that are not included in RMC 4-4-030.B, [no] • Check of City of Renton plans heretofore adopted by reference as to relevance, [done] • Determination if there are plans adopted by the City, but not adopted by reference in Title IV of the RMC and, if so, are they still relevant, [done] • Verification that King County plans included in RMC 4-4-030.B are currently viable, [upon recommendation of Renton Attorney, county plans removed from RMC] • Determination if RMC 4-4-030.B: “Adoption by Reference,” can be and should be removed from Title IV, [not removed upon recommendation of Renton Attorney • Review other plans adopted by the City as to relevance and determine if they should be adopted by reference in the RMC, [done] • Assess the consistency of relevant City plans with the 2015 Comprehensive Plan and Renton Municipal Code, [done] • Propose revisions to City plans as necessary, and [not necessary] • Propose additions and deletions to the list of plans adopted by reference. [done] An example of non-relevance is the South Renton Neighborhood Plan (Plan), which was adopted before the recent down-zoning of the neighborhood, thereby reducing the maximum density and building heights. The Plan is in conflict with the current development regulations. Staff Recommendation The current recommendation is to revise Renton Municipal Code 4-4-030.B to include only relevant plans and rescind plans that are no longer relevant. Implementation Requirements Adopt ordinances and/or resolutions as appropriate and necessary. AGENDA ITEM #1. d) Planning and Development CommitteeJanuary 28, 2016DOCKET#124:PLANREVIEW FORCONSISTENCYAGENDA ITEM #1. Purpose of Plan Review•Plans adopted over the years must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan•In 2015, Renton’s Comprehensive Plan was substantially revised•If plans are valid, but inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, corrections must be recommended•This work presented an opportunity to verify the relevancy of plansAGENDA ITEM #1. Adopted Plans InconsistentNo plans were found to be inconsistent with the revised Comprehensive PlanAGENDA ITEM #1. Plans No Longer ValidSeveral plans were found to be no longer valid and have been proposed to be rescinded. They include:•South Renton Neighborhood Plan •Community Development Plan•Supplement to the Community Development Plan •Comprehensive Plan for Urban Beautification AGENDA ITEM #1. Plan Review Tasks•Revise Code (RMC 4-4-030.B: “Adopted by Reference”) to include only relevant plans•Rescind adopted plans that are no longer relevantAGENDA ITEM #1. c:\users\jmedzegian\desktop\d-125 staff rpt.docx November 4, 2015 #D-125 ASSISTED LIVING General Description Staff was directed to review Title IV regulations pertaining to Assisted Living Facilities, Convalescent Centers, and senior housing; specifically, review of the permissive zones and the allowed intensity. Analysis – Permissive Zones By definition, an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) contains dwelling units and offers round-the-clock limited aspects of personal care, such as taking medication, bathing, or dressing. Dwelling units include a full kitchen or kitchenette, a bathroom, and a living area. On the premises, facilities include: a professional kitchen, common dining room, recreation area(s), activity room, and a laundry area. Meals may be provided multiple times daily in a common dining area. In contrast, a Convalescent Center (CC) is licensed by the State for patients recovering health and strength after illness or injury, or receiving long-term care for chronic conditions, disabilities, or terminal illnesses. Facilities provide twenty-four (24) hour supervised nursing care and feature extended treatment that is administered by a skilled nursing staff. Typically, residents do not live in individual units and the facilities provide personal care, room, board, laundry service, and organized activities. “Senior housing” is not defined by Title IV. If an applicant were to propose age-restricted housing, it would be regulated by the City in the same manner as any other housing. Catering to a certain demographic group or offering health services would be a voluntary decision of a proprietor. Currently, ALFs and CCs are allowed outright, or through an Administrative or Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit in the following zones: P = Permitted Outright AD = Administrative Conditional Use Permit H = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit Staff concludes that the current zones allowing either an ALF or CC are appropriate. Where a Conditional Use Permit (issued by the Administrator or Hearing Examiner) may allow a facility, the process and possible conditions would likely mitigate any real or perceived impacts, or such application may be denied if a site and/or surrounding area is incompatible with the use. Analysis – Intensity Because ALFs create dwelling units within the facility the intensity of the development is governed by the density of applicable zones, in addition to other development regulations (e.g., RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UC Assisted living AD ADPP P PPPP Convalescent centers H H H H PADP PADAD K. SERVICES RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALUSES: D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONS AGENDA ITEM #1. e) Page 2 of 3 November 4, 2015 building coverage, height, parking, etc.). Bonus density is offered for these facilities, which allows a one-and-a-half (1.5) increase. For example, in the COR zone the maximum density is 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), but up to 75 du/ac with bonus density. In the R-1, R-10, and R- 14 zones an absolute maximum density of 18 du/ac is offered to ALFs. The absolute maximum density bonus is based on the intensity of other uses allowed in the R-1. As a land use, the traffic generated by an ALF is generally lower than a grouping of single-family homes. Other high intensity land uses in the R-1 include group homes for seven or more, bed and breakfast houses, and family day care. Many of these uses have similar characteristics of use to ALFs, such as visitors, employees, and traffic generation. Family day care allows for the care of 12 or fewer children in a 24-hour period. Group homes (II) are not limited to a specified number of people and includes staff that provide care. Professional bed and breakfast houses allow for overnight accommodations for a range of four to ten guest rooms. All of these uses involve a staff and residents or customers. Staff applied the maximum number of guest rooms (10) allowed at a professional bed and breakfast as a base to determine the maximum number of assisted living residential units to allow in the R-1. It is reasonable to assume that a proprietor of a bed and breakfast would have two bedrooms for themselves. This base number of 12 was multiplied by the density ratio 1.5 to determine that up to 18 du/ac should be allowed for ALFs in the R-1 zone, which was also applied to the R-10 and R-14 zones. On the other hand, rooms for habitation in CCs are not required to meet the definition of a dwelling unit (cooking and sanitary facilities must be provided), and the facilities are generally comparable to a non-emergency hospital for long-term care and rehabilitation. Because CCs are not subject to density regulations, the intensity of the facilities is governed by general development standards (e.g., building coverage, height, parking, etc.) coupled with any site constraints. Summary Staff considers the zones where ALFs and CCs are allowed outright to be appropriate for such uses, while sites within zones that permit them conditionally will be determined for appropriateness through the Conditional Use Permit process (Administrative or Hearing Examiner). Furthermore, staff believes that the density bonus of 1.5 times base density in commercial zones, and up to 18 du/ac in the R-1, R-10, and R-14 zones to be appropriate intensities. Staff does not propose any amendments related to Assisted Living Facilities and Convalescent Centers. Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan N/A Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities N/A AGENDA ITEM #1. e) Page 3 of 3 November 4, 2015 Effect on the rate of population and employment growth N/A Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable N/A Effect on general land values or housing costs N/A Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies N/A Effect on other considerations N/A Staff Recommendation No amendments to Renton Municipal Code are proposed. Implementation Requirements N/A AGENDA ITEM #1. e) Planning Commission BriefingNovember 4, 2015DOCKET#125:ASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1. ASSISTEDLIVING, CONVALESCENTCENTERS, & SENIORHOUSING1. Where should these uses be allowed?2. At what intensity should these facilities be permitted to develop?AGENDA ITEM #1. Credit: merrillgardens.comASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1. •Bathing•Dressing•Grooming•Toileting•Medication Management•Escorts to Meals and Activities•Safety ChecksASSISTEDLIVINGFACILITIESAGENDA ITEM #1. Credit: redmondcareandrehab.comCONVALESCENTCENTERSAGENDA ITEM #1. •Physical, Occupational and Speech Therapy•Round-the-clock nursing care•Dental, Podiatry and Psychiatry•X-Ray, Pharmacy and Laboratory•Ophthalmology and Audiology•Wound Care Management•Restorative Nursing-ADL Care•Recreational Therapy•Dietary and Nutritional Services•Dialysis Care Services•Care management, discharge planning, and social work•Pain Management•Medication Administration•Tube-Feeding•IV Therapy•Respite Care•HospiceCONVALESCENTCENTERSAGENDA ITEM #1. SENIORHOUSINGCedar River CourtAGENDA ITEM #1. RC R-1 R-4 R-6 R-8 RMH R-10 R-14 RMF IL IM IH CN CV CA CD CO COR UCAssisted living AD AD P P P P P P PConvalescent centersH H H H PADP PADADK. SERVICESRESIDENTIALINDUSTRIAL COMMERCIALUSES:D. OTHER RESIDENTIAL, LODGING AND HOME OCCUPATIONSALLOWEDLOCATIONSP = Permitted OutrightAD = Administrative Conditional Use PermitH = Hearing Examiner Conditional Use PermitAGENDA ITEM #1. Assisted Living Facility:•Max. density of zone multiplied by 1.5 (or 18 du/ac in residential zones);•General development regulationsALLOWEDINTENSITYConvalescent Center:•General development regulationsBed & Breakfast:12 bedrooms x 1.5 = 18AGENDA ITEM #1. PROPOSEDREVISIONS•Remove the minimum age requirement of 55 years.AGENDA ITEM #1. Public Hearing: January 6, 2016Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016NEXTSTEPSAGENDA ITEM #1. C:\Users\jmedzegian\Desktop\D-126 Staff Rpt..docx November 4, 2015 D# 126 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE INTERPRETATIONS General Description Renton Municipal Code Title IV Development Regulations are proposed to be amended based on recent administrative interpretations (attached) of unclear or contradictory code. These administrative decisions have already become effective. This report to the Planning Commission is part of the process by which the print version of the code is to be amended based on such decisions. Municipal code section 4-1-080 provides guidance for Administrative Interpretations as it states: RMC 4-1-080.A.1.a: The Community and Economic Development Administrator, or designee, is hereby authorized to make interpretations regarding the implementation of unclear or contradictory regulations contained in this Title. Any interpretation of the Renton Title IV Development Regulations shall be made in accordance with the intent or purpose statement of the specific regulation and the Comprehensive Plan. Life, safety and public health regulations are assumed to prevail over other regulations. Interpretations are needed where there are unclear or contradictory regulations. Examples include mistakenly placed text, sections of code that lack predictability for users, and where certain situations were not evaluated in updating Title IV. Each decision has a public appeal period and is supplied with a background, justification, decision, and recommended code amendment. For more information about the process or each determination, go to: • Background and decision: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24686 • Process: http://rentonwa.gov/business/default.aspx?id=24684 Impact Analysis Effect on rate of growth, development, and conversion of land as envisioned in the Plan None Effect on the City’s capacity to provide adequate public facilities None Effect on the rate of population and employment growth None Whether Plan objectives are being met as specified or remain valid and desirable Plan objectives are being met as specified and remain valid and desirable. Effect on general land values or housing costs None AGENDA ITEM #1. f) #D-126 Page 2 of 4 November 4, 2015 Whether capital improvements or expenditures are being made or completed as expected N/A Consistency with GMA, the Plan, and Countywide Planning Policies Determinations are based on proposed development standards that have been previously reviewed in light of these plans and policies. Code Interpretations are consistent with these plans. Effect on critical areas and natural resource lands None Effect on other considerations None Staff Recommendation Staff recommends codifying all code amendments as written within Administrative Code Interpretations CI-61 through CI-78. These Code Interpretations are abbreviated below. • CI-61 – Title Report for Complete Submittal: CI-61 adds a Title Report to the list of required materials for certain land use actions. Title Reports provide critical information regarding property, including property owners and any encumbrances. It is important to ensure all property owners consent to a land use application and that the proposed use or development does not conflict with any encumbrances, such as easements. Therefore, a Title Report is a necessary submittal requirement for staff to conduct a complete review of certain land use applications. • CI-62 – Side Yard Abutting Shared Driveways: CI-62 clarifies that a side yard along a street setback is not necessary or appropriate for shared driveways. These setbacks are intended for corner lots and are usually equal to the front setback. Requiring a substantial setback for houses that front a public street and a shared driveway is unnecessary. • CI-63 – Signs within Shoreline Areas – Special Requirements: Currently the City’s adopted sign regulations contain special requirements for signs located within shoreline areas. The language adopted within the Sign Code for signage located within shoreline areas is not consistent with the language adopted under the City’s current Shoreline Master Program, and therefore is proposed to be deleted. • CI-64 – Side Yard Setback Requirements adopted under Ordinance 5724: CI-64 adjusted side yard setbacks established under interim zoning (R-8 standards were temporarily set to anticipated R-6 standards). Now that interim zoning has been repealed, this interpretation is rescinded. • CI-65 – Time Review Period for Minor Alterations: CI-65 determined that applications for “minor alterations” of existing wireless communication towers, as defined in RMC 4- AGENDA ITEM #1. f) #D-126 Page 3 of 4 November 4, 2015 4-140.E, shall be reviewed within 60-days, including review to determine whether an application is complete. • CI-66 – Minimum Dimensions for Wireless Landscaping/Screening: CI-66 clarified that required landscaping to screen a telecommunications compound shall be 15 feet wide, equal to the height of the compound fence, and located along the outside perimeter of the fence. • CI-67 – Minimum Front Yard for Alley Accessed Garages: CI-67 corrects the inadvertent omission of reduced front setbacks for alley-loaded garages that occurred during extensive Title IV updates in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. • CI-68 – Fence Height for Side Yards Along a Street and Rear Yards Abutting a Street: CI- 68 clarifies that fences within a side yard along a street setback may only exceed 48 inches in height upon approval of a Special Fence Permit. • CI-69 – Fence Height Requiring Building Permit: CI-69 corrects a reference to the International Building Code by noting the requirement of a building permit for fences that are seven feet tall instead of six feet. • CI-70 – Allowed Projections into Setbacks - Fences/Retaining Walls: CI-70 corrects a footnote that provides misleading information about allowed height of fences and retaining walls within setbacks. The footnote was corrected to direct readers to the Fences/Retaining Wall regulations instead of attempting to summarize standards. • CI-71 – Underground Utilities Exemption Process: CI-71 provides an exemption to seeking a variance for undergrounding utilities if compliance with standards can be shown. • CI-72 – CD Zone Landscaping and Bicycle Parking Requirements: Specifies that parking lot landscaping applies to existing or proposed surface parking lots, and that bicycle parking is still required if off-street vehicular parking is not required. • CI-73 – Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF): Corrects conflicting standards by specifying that building height is measured from average grade to the highest portion of the structure, and placing restrictions on wall plate height and the number of stories. • CI-74 – Amendments to Wireless Communication Facility Regulations: CI-74 extended the definition of a Minor Alteration to existing non-tower facilities, clarified that height restrictions influenced by the airport are applicable, and created a purposeful redundancy between different RMC Titles regarding utility poles as towers. • CI-75 – Distinguishing Tracts from Lots During Subdivision Review: Recent docket work resulted in requiring certain facilities and/or features to be located within tracts as opposed to easements because of the added legal protection of a distinct property. AGENDA ITEM #1. f) #D-126 Page 4 of 4 November 4, 2015 Such facilities/features include protected trees, native growth protection, stormwater detention facilities, open space, and private access. Prior to the recent docket work these areas would have been required to be within easements, and therefore these required tracts should not count towards the lot count of proposed subdivisions. • CI-76 – RMF Yard Setbacks: CI-76 clarified a setback scheme based on lot width by replacing it with prescriptive setbacks in the RMF zone (five feet side yard setback, and 20 feet side yard along a street setback). • CI-77 – WCF Minor Alteration Criteria: CI-77 corrected a scrivener’s error by requiring all Minor Alteration Criteria be satisfied instead of one or more criterions. • CI-78 – Fee in Lieu of Street Improvements: CI-78 specifies that the fee in-lieu option is available to developers of infill single family building permits, and reduces the fee in-lieu for sidewalk and curb to more appropriate figures. Implementation Requirements Staff Recommendation Staff recommends amendments to Renton Municipal Code as proposed within the cited Administrative Code Interpretations. Implementation Requirements Although these interpretations are already effective, the Planning Division is bringing these decisions to the Planning Commission as part of a more extensive public process to provide greater transparency where Title IV Development Regulations have been clarified and/or amended. Codify Administrative Code Interpretations by adopting an ordinance amending the pertinent sections of RMC as prepared within each Administrative Code Interpretation will codify. AGENDA ITEM #1. f) Planning Commission Public HearingJanuary 6, 2016DOCKET#126:ADMINISTRATIVECODEINTERPRETATIONSAGENDA ITEM #1. CI-61 – Title Report for Complete Submittal:CI-61 adds a Title Report to the list of required materials for certain land use actions. CI-62 – Side Yard Abutting Shared Driveways:CI-62 clarifies that a “side yard along a street” setback is not necessary or appropriate for shared driveways. CI-63 – Signs within Shoreline Areas – Special Requirements: Sign Code for signage located within shoreline areas is not consistent with the language adopted under the City’s current Shoreline Master Program, and therefore is proposed to be deleted.CI-64 – Side Yard Setback Requirements adopted under Ordinance 5724: CI-64 adjusted side yard setbacks established under interim zoning (R-8 standards were temporarily set to anticipated R-6 standards). Now that interim zoning has been repealed, this interpretation is rescinded.AGENDA ITEM #1. CI-65 – Time Review Period for Minor Alterations: CI-65 determined that applications for “minor alterations” of existing wireless communication towers, as defined in RMC 4-4-140.E, shall be reviewed within 60-days, including review to determine whether an application is complete.CI-66 – Minimum Dimensions for Wireless Landscaping/Screening: Required landscaping to screen a telecommunications compound shall be 15 feet wide, equal to the height of the compound fence, and located along the outside perimeter of the fence.CI-67 – Minimum Front Yard for Alley Accessed Garages: CI-67 corrects the inadvertent omission of reduced front setbacks for alley-loaded garages that occurred during extensive Title IV updates in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan update. AGENDA ITEM #1. CI-68 – Fence Height for Side Yards Along a Street and Rear Yards Abutting a Street: CI-68 clarifies that fences within a side yard along a street setback may only exceed 48 inches in height upon approval of a Special Fence Permit.CI-69 – Fence Height Requiring Building Permit: CI-69 corrects a reference to the International Building Code by noting the requirement of a building permit for fences that are seven feet tall instead of six feet.CI-70 – Allowed Projections into Setbacks - Fences/Retaining Walls: CI-70 corrects a footnote that provides misleading information about allowed height of fences and retaining walls within setbacks. The footnote was corrected to direct readers to the Fences/Retaining Wall regulations instead of attempting to summarize standards.AGENDA ITEM #1. CI-71 – Underground Utilities Exemption Process: CI-71 provides an exemption to seeking a variance for undergrounding utilities if compliance with standards can be shown.CI-72 – CD Zone Landscaping and Bicycle Parking Requirements: Specifies that parking lot landscaping applies to existing or proposed surface parking lots, and that bicycle parking is still required if off-street vehicular parking is not required. CI-73 – Residential Building Height (RC thru RMF): Corrects conflicting standards by specifying that building height is measured from average grade to the highest portion of the structure, and placing restrictions on wall plate height and the number of stories.AGENDA ITEM #1. CI-74 – Amendments to Wireless Communication Facility Regulations: CI-74 extended the definition of a Minor Alteration to existing non-tower facilities, clarified that height restrictions influenced by the airport are applicable, and created a purposeful redundancy between different RMC Titles regarding utility poles as towers.CI-75 – Distinguishing Tracts from Lots During Subdivision Review: Recent docket work resulted in requiring certain facilities and/or features to be located within tracts as opposed to easements because of the added legal protection of a distinct property. Such facilities/features include protected trees, native growth protection, stormwater detention facilities, open space, and private access. Prior to the recent docket work these areas would have been required to be within easements, and therefore these required tracts should not count towards the lot count of proposed subdivisions.AGENDA ITEM #1. CI-76 – RMF Yard Setbacks: CI-76 clarified a setback scheme based on lot width by replacing it with prescriptive setbacks in the RMF zone (five feet side yard setback, and 20 feet side yard along a street setback).CI-77 – WCF Minor Alteration Criteria: CI-77 corrected a scrivener's error by requiring all Minor Alteration Criteria be satisfied instead of one or more criterion.CI-78 – Fee in Lieu of Street Improvements: CI-78 specifies that the fee in-lieu option is available to developers of infill single family building permits, and reduces the fee in-lieu for sidewalk and curb to more appropriate figures.AGENDA ITEM #1. NEXTSTEPSPublic Hearing: Shall conclude on 1/13/16 at 5:00 p.m.Public Comments: Renton City Hall jsubia@rentonwa.govc/o Judith Subia1055 S. Grady WayRenton, WA 98057Deliberations and Recommendations: January 20, 2016AGENDA ITEM #1. AGENDA ITEM #2. a) AGENDA ITEM #2. a) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT for the QUENDALL TERMINALS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT City of Renton The EIS for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project has been prepared in compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) of 1971 (Chapter 43.21C, Revised Code of Washington) and the SEPA Rules, effective April 4, 1984, as amended (Chapter 197-11, Washington Administrative Code). Preparation of this EIS is the responsibility of the City of Renton. The City of Renton has determined that this document has been prepared in a responsible manner using appropriate methods and they have directed the areas of research and analysis that were undertaken in preparation of this EIS. This document is not an authorization for an action, nor does it constitute a decision or a recommendation for an action; in its final form, it will accompany the Proposed Actions and will be considered in making the final decisions on the proposal. Date of Draft EIS Issuance ................................................... December 10, 2010 Date of EIS Addendum Issuance ............................................ October 19, 2012 Date of Final EIS Issuance ........................................................ August 31, 2015 AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 i Fact Sheet FACT SHEET PROJECT TITLE Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project PROPONENT/APPLICANT Century Pacific, LLLP LOCATION The approximately 21.5-acre Quendall Terminals site is located in the northern portion of the City of Renton, within the Southwest ¼ of Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 5 East, King County. The site includes an approximately 20.3-acre Main Property along Lake Washington, and an approximately 1.2-acre Isolated Property to the northeast. The Main Property is generally bordered by a Puget Sound Energy easement and the Seattle Seahawks Training Facility to the north; the railroad right-of-way, Lake Washington Boulevard and Ripley Lane N to the east; the Barbee Mill residential development to the south; and, Lake Washington to the west. The Isolated Property is generally bounded by Ripley Lane N to the west, and the southbound I-405 off-ramp to the east and south. PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Actions for the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project include:  Master Site Plan approval from the City;  Binding Site Plan approval from the City;  Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval from the City;  Other local, state, and federal permit approvals for construction and redevelopment; and,  Construction and operation of the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ALTERNATIVES The Quendall Terminals site has received a Superfund designation from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will undergo cleanup/remediation under the oversight of the EPA prior to redevelopment. Potential impacts to the environment associated with cleanup/remediation activities will be addressed through the separate EPA process. The impact analyses in this EIS, which solely addresses impacts that may occur due to post-cleanup redevelopment of the Quendall Terminals site, assume an existing/baseline condition subsequent to cleanup/remediation. AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 ii Fact Sheet To date, two environmental review documents under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) have been issued for public review and comment by the City of Renton on the Quendall Terminals Redevelopment Project: a Draft EIS (DEIS) issued in December 2010 and an EIS Addendum issued in October 2012. These documents are available for review at the King County library system, Renton public libraries, Renton City Hall, and via download on the City of Renton Website – www.rentonwa.gov. Draft EIS – December 2010 The 2010 DEIS addressed the probable significant adverse impacts that could occur as a result of approval by the City of a Master Plan, Binding Site Plan, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, and other local, state and federal permits; and, potential future redevelopment activities through build-out in 2015 assumed in that document. Two redevelopment alternatives and the No-Action Alternative were addressed in the DEIS. EIS Addendum – October 2012 Subsequent to issuance of the DEIS, a Preferred Alternative was voluntarily developed by the applicant and the applicant’s technical team based on additional agency/community input (particularly from EPA), and continued input and coordination with the City of Renton. The Preferred Alternative was the subject of the analysis in the EIS Addendum. The Preferred Alternative is intended to be a compact, urban mixed-use development. The project is planned to ensure that future redevelopment is compatible with the environmental remediation effort at the site that is currently underway. Following are several of the key full build-out (for environmental review purposes in the Addendum assumed to be 2015) redevelopment assumptions for the Preferred Alternative:  Retail/Restaurant Uses (21,600 sq. ft. retail/9,000 sq. ft. restaurant)  Office Uses (none) AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 iii Fact Sheet  Residential Units (692 units)  Maximum Building Heights (64 ft.)  Parking (1,337 parking spaces)  Shoreline Setback (100-ft. min. setback)  Setbacks from Adjacent Properties (north: 38–95 ft.; south: 40–200 ft.)  View Corridors (enlarged Street “B” corridor)  Building Height Modulation (4-story Building SW4 along southwest property line; 5- to 6- story buildings elsewhere)  Natural Public Open Space Areas – 3.7 acres, and Other Related Areas – 6.9 acres (10.6 acres)  Building Design (brick, stucco, masonry, and precast concrete; minimal metal siding)  Emergency Access Road (in the western portion of the site) The Draft EIS, EIS Addendum and this Final EIS together constitute the EIS for the proposal. LEAD AGENCY (SEPA) City of Renton Environmental Review Committee SEPA RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Dept. of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 EIS CONTACT PERSON Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Dept. of Community & Economic Development Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Phone: (425) 430-7314 FINAL ACTION Approvals/permits by the City of Renton to authorize development, construction, and operation of the Quendall Terminals mixed-use development, as well as infrastructure improvements to serve the development. PERMITS AND APPROVALS Preliminary investigation indicates that the following permits and/or approvals could be required or requested for the Proposed Actions. Additional permits/approvals may be identified during the review process associated with specific development projects. AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 iv Fact Sheet  Federal  CERCLA Remediation (for site cleanup/remediation prior to redevelopment)  State of Washington  Dept. of Ecology, Construction Stormwater General Permit  Dept. of Ecology, NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit  Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Hydraulic Project Approval  City of Renton  Master Site Plan Approval  Shoreline Substantial Development Permit  Binding Site Plan  Site Plan Review  Construction Permits  Building Permits  Development Permits  Utility Approvals  Property Permits & Licenses FINAL EIS (FEIS) AUTHORS AND PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS The Quendall Terminals Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared under the direction of the City of Renton and analyses were provided by the following consulting firms: FEIS Project Manager, Primary Author EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 Earth AESI 911 5th Avenue Kirkland, WA 98033 Critical Areas Raedeke Associates 2111 N Northgate Way, Suite 219 Seattle, WA 98133 AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 v Fact Sheet Visual Analysis (Simulations) The Portico Group 1500 4th Avenue - 3rd Floor Seattle, Washington 98101 Transportation/Traffic Transportation, Engineering Northwest, LLC 816 6th Street S Kirkland, WA 98033 Historic Resources Cultural Resource Consultants 710 Erickson Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 LOCATION OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION Background material and supporting documents are located at the offices of: EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., PBC 2200 6th Avenue, Suite 707 Seattle, WA 98121 City of Renton Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Department of Community & Economic Development, Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 DATE OF FEIS ISSUANCE August 31, 2015 AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIS, EIS ADDENDUM AND FEIS Copies of this FEIS have been distributed to agencies, organizations, and individuals noted on the Distribution List contained in Appendix A to this document. The FEIS is also available for review on the City of Renton website at http://www.rentonwa.gov/ and at the following King County Library System Renton public libraries: Renton Main Library 100 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98057 Renton Highlands Library 2902 NE 12th Street Renton, WA 98056 AGENDA ITEM #2. a) Quendall Terminals Final EIS August 2015 vi Fact Sheet A limited number of printed copies of this FEIS may be purchased at the City of Renton’s Finance Department (1st Floor of City Hall) for $35 per hard copy or $10.00 per CD, plus tax and postage (if mailed). AGENDA ITEM #2. a) QUENDALLExteriorDesignGoals:ProvideacoordinateddesignlanguagewithProvideahumanscale,highlightportalelemestreet-scapeandfacade‘TERMINALS-PlRENTON,WASHINICENTURYPACIFICRetailandRestaurantSpaceFeatures:avarietyofdetailsandmaterialsto-Asidewalkorientationwitharchitecturallyarticulatedpiants,andprovideavisuallyinterestingglassextendingtosidewalklevel.IncludecanopiesofsteelandglassforweatherprotectIncludesconceandcanopylightingfixturesforanapp:Streetlightingonpublicright-of-waysandintersectionsAlternatefacadematerialsanddetailsareusedforvarTovisuallyconcealthestructuredparkingfromstreet:-Weareprovidingretail/restaurantatsomestreetfacadparkingbehind.Facadeswithparkingdirectlybehindhavethefollowing:REFERREDALT!GTON2,LPunchedopeningswithtionropriatelightinglevel.5‘iety,leswhichcompletelyscreensResidentialFloorsFeatures:0Thesefloorsaresetbackfromthebasefacadeformodulati-Additionalarchitecturalfacademodulationisprovidedvia:0Horizontalplanmodulationwithprojectingdecks.oProjectingverticalelementsbeyondtheparapet,oAlternatefacadematerialsanddetailsareusedforvarieoArchitecturalfacadeelementvariety.-Strongcornerelementstohighlighttheentryportal.Amenities:aLargelandscapecourtyardatIvisuallyscreensstructt:o_w_>o._.2008&7:‘maE<zE:<uoxuozo,s=.....§.5En59.:55I5a....,N.2.:55B«zmE.,9_vE.EE._.._<?n?b?En.mcmsmcsommzo_:.,.:_sEuomm_>mm.0:no_278onandvisualinterest.aty.JredparkingbelowandoArchiteclurallyarticulatedpunchedopeningsin-filledallowsclimbingvines.oIntermittenttrelliselementsarevinecovered.0BermandextendlandscapingtosillofpunchedupaAlternatefacadematerialsanddetailsareusedfor-Weavoidsolidwalls.‘ithgrillworkthatalsoprovidesrestfulareastovieworforsitting.reading,andstrianexerciseroomorentertainmentspace.enings.0Potentialforrooftopplazawithlandscapingandgreenroof‘variety.Buildings:Thereare4to6levelsinthese-P1includesscreenedstiinNW1.-FloorsaboveP1areallcourtyardsasanamenitExteriorFinish:Descriptions:MaterlCoping:Paintenlling.Itmayincludeelements.mixedusebuildingsasfollows:ructuredparkingwithsomeretail8.restaurantusessouthfacingresidentialuse.Floor1includesextensiveelevatedlandscapedy.ia|IFinish:adMetal,colortomatchsiding.ingiilnfnd.LTERMINALSl,WASHINGTONBYPAC|FlC,LPBUILDINGNW1PARTIALSOUTHELEVATl------------------------PARTlll?lION’|ALELEVATIONl?ll?llllllllllllllll‘.lllllllllllllllGRAPHICSCALESCALE:1"=112'12'24‘2.vlucouown.nun.system:WallsalBaseofBuilding(LevelP1):WallsaboveBaseofBuilding(ResidentialFloors1through5)WallsatStairPenthouse&RoofEquipment:Railings,GrillworkandTrellis:EntryCanopy:SoonoeLightingFixtures:\IIV\plIanodizlncludl0BfilncludlMetalPaintePainteGreenTypicel\lllI.mm.‘-u.-..uwageinuuuum-um--unripe.VIVCIIred—typical.Useclearglassatretail.esamixofmaterialsforvariety:increte—stainedorpainted?nish.ickveneerwithrandomcoloresamixofmaterialsforvariety:MetalPanelSiding—paintedfinish.Stucco—paintedfinish.CompositePanelSiding—paintedfinish.Brickveneerwithrandomcolor.PanelSiding—paintedfinish.adMeal,accentcolorsTBD.adMetal.accentcolorsTBD.ltintglazinginaluminumframe.iiatLevelP1,SelectionTBD.ASNOTED2063252553N;/DWGS/09120/OUENDALL/P1—O"RE’5mFLOOR53.5‘_ROOFLEVEL64.25EEEEII|[I|]EI]EEJ[]I|BUILDINGNW19,_amFLOOR43.5‘‘II‘IDEDED[IIIb_.lI|IIIII],_?,FA3QE,3i,_,7V V 9,2ndFLOOR23.5’[D[D[D_.-2.EFQQRJ-‘I-5',’,.-‘?-‘M,“Vp_—1LEVEL9.0uBUILDINGNE1GRAPHICSCALESOUTHELEVATION'5O.SCALE:1"=30'EEEEIDIIEmmEmmaEEDJDIIEDDIIDZIIIEDEEEEED]EDDIIWEEBEENEDDIIEDEE’7.w~.mm<>>.uHC.<um.ma_mmv_<;_of4..-.m»ump_Ium</\/\/\|_4emmm._.<_unmm<Qcm._..m:§wuz<.._s.._.J_<Bm?bmmImzo_<>m:m_AGENDA ITEM #2. b) AGENDA ITEM #2. c) AGENDA ITEM #2. d) QUENDALLExteriorDesignGoals:ProvideacoordinateddesignlanguagewithavProvideahumanscale,highlightportalelementstreel—scapeandfacade.TERMINALS-PlRENTON,WASHINCENTURYPACIFICarietyofdetailsandmaterialsto:5,andprovideavisuallyinterestingRetailandRestaurantSpaceFeatures:I000Asidewalkorientationwitharchitecturallyarticulateglassextendingtosidewalklevel.IncludecanopiesofsteelandglassforweatherproIncludesconceandcanopylightingfixturesforanStreetlightingonpublicright-of-waysandintersectiAlternatefacadematerialsanddetailsareusedforREFERREDALTEGTON3,LPResidentialFloorsFeatures:idpunchedopeningswith-Thesefloorsaresetbackfromthebasefacadeforvtection0Additionalarchitecturalfacademodulationisprovi:ippropriatelightinglevel.0Horizontalplanmodulationwithprojectingdeclions.oProjectingverticalelementsbeyondtheparapevariety.oAlternatefacadematerialsanddetailsareuset-Architecturalfacadeelementvariety.r_o_m_>w._Eon8&7:Q.M32554_.EERV:35Uoxoozuu.:_E:<SEEK_w(zE:<Bmm?wmaV.mgommzOF<OE2Emnmwsmmr:su._uEu.0:non.ST8modulationandvisualinterest.dedvia:ks.at:1-forvariety.AGENDA ITEM #2. e)