Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Final Decision_Mission Health Care_ LUA-15-000736 - 12-22-20151 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Mission Healthcare Conditional Use and Site Plan LUA15-000736, ECF, SA-H, CU-A ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a new 55,400 square foot, three story convalescent center containing 60 beds to be used for short term rehabilitation services to be located at the southeast corner of SE 174th St and 106th Place SE. The site plan and conditional use permit applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony Rocale Timmons, senior planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposal. Laura Bartenhagen, project engineer, noted that the applicant is limited to eight foot retaining walls while the adjoining McDonalds has much taller retaining walls. The applicant is proposing thirteen foot retaining walls. Ms. Timmons noted that retaining walls are necessary for the project because there’s a grade change of 30 feet from east to west. There is a very large 20-25 foot retaining wall along Benson as asserted by the applicant. Since the construction of that retaining wall, the City has adopted standards limiting 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 retaining wall height to eight feet. Staff is recommending that the applicant comply with the eight foot standard. The standard can be met by terracing in this case. Exhibits The December 8, 2015 Staff Report Exhibits 1-16 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. . FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Careage Inc.. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on December 8, 2015 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a new 55,400 square foot, three story convalescent center containing 60 beds to be used for short term rehabilitation services to be located at the southeast corner of SE 174th St and 106th Place SE. The site currently contains an espresso stand which is proposed for removal. Access is proposed via 106th Pl SE with an additional connection to the neighboring commercial property to the east. The proposal includes 56 surface parking stalls to the south and east of the building. The proposed development is within 50 feet of a coal mine hazard. The project site is 76,615 square feet in area. The existing site is relatively flat with a slope from the east to the west sides of the project site. The pervious portion of the parcel is generally pasture with an existing coffee stand and access road. The topography of the site slopes from approximately 380 feet on the east side of the property to approximately 350 feet on the west side of the site. The steepest slope on the site is approximately 10% along the eastern half of the property. The applicant is proposing several retaining walls ranging in height from 2 to 13 feet in order to support grade changes on the east and west sides of the building primarily for parking. RMC 4-4-040(E)(1) limits the maximum height of retaining walls to 8-feet. At the hearing, the applicant argued for retaining wall heights that exceed 8 feet on the basis that an adjoining property has higher retaining walls. However, RMC 4-4-040(E)(1) was adopted in early 2015 and there was no 8 foot height limit in place when the retaining wall on the adjoining property was constructed. The examiner has no authority to waive the requirements of RMC 4-4-040(E)(1) absent the application for a variance. Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the applicant to revise the site and grading plans in order to comply with the maximum retaining wall heights. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 4. 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 sewer service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. Sewer and water certificates of availability will be required prior to the issuance of any construction permits. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide fire and police service. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities are adequate to serve the development as conditioned with the payment of fire impact fees. C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical drainage review submitted by the applicant is consistent with adopted city standards. The drainage review is entitled “Technical Information Report,” (“TIR”) prepared by ESM Civil, dated October 7, 2015 (Exhibit 6). The project is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Stormwater detention and water quality treatment would be provided within a combined detention/water quality vault under the parking lot located in the southwest corner of the site. The combined detention/water quality vault would discharge west to the existing stormwater conveyance system in the intersection of SE 174th Street and 106th Place SE in the project’s northwest corner frontage. The stormwater drainage conveyance system will be sized as part of the final TIR to convey the 25 year design storm event and to contain the 100 year design storm event. The approximate vault footprint is 40 feet wide by 125 feet long. Additional water quality treatment would be provided by modular wetlands/stormwater biofiltration systems for any flow that bypasses the primary water quality vault. D. Parks/Open Space. As conditioned, the proposal complies with applicable open space requirements and is therefore considered to provide for adequate open space. The project site is located within Design District “D” and is therefore subject to the District “D” open space requirements of RMC 4-3-100(E). As discussed in the staff report, those standards require a total amount of open space of at least 1% of the site area and 1% of building area. The combined site and building area for the proposal is 132,015 square feet, which results in a minimum open space requirement of 1,320 square feet. The proposed development includes approximately 1,575 square feet of pedestrian-oriented exterior recreation areas and common open space within the courtyard for resident use and approximately 1,000 square feet of landscaped common open space along the pedestrian approaches to the building entrances. These recreation and common open spaces are proposed to be provided with concrete paths, path lighting and seating areas. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 In terms of serving as distinctive project focal points and providing for adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site, the applicant needs to provide additional information. The primary southern entrance would be sheltered by a connector canopy to a covered vehicle drop-off for use by the skilled nursing residents and their families. The elevations submitted by the applicant do not include details for the urban amenities such as seating areas, lighting fixtures, public art, or vertical landscaping. While the plans do indicate color stamped concrete in this area, additional details are needed to ensure the proposal establishes a quality pedestrian experience along the street and at the entrances for the building. Therefore, as recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the applicant to submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. Any applicable park impact fees would be assessed during building permit review. Compliance with the City’s park impact fee ordinance sets the standard for adequate provision for parks. E. Transportation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable city standards. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (“TIA”) prepared by Concord Engineering, dated October 21, 2015 (Exhibit 8). The provided TIA was found by staff to meet the intent of the TIA guidelines and is generally acceptable for preliminary review with recommendations for minor revisions which are not anticipated to change the likelihood of significant adverse impacts. It is anticipated that the proposed development would generate approximately 422 average daily trips with 31 AM peak-hour trips and 41 PM peak-hour trips. The TIA established to the satisfaction of staff that the level of service of potentially affected intersections will not be lowered as a result of the project. Access is proposed via 106th Place SE with an additional connection to the neighboring commercial property to the east. The project will utilize the three existing driveways as access points to the surrounding street network. No additional access points are proposed as a part of the project. As conditioned, public works staff have also determined that the proposal promotes safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation through the shared access points and also provides desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The proposed pedestrian circulation system helps to promote a walkable, pedestrian oriented, community and would provide eventual linkages to SE Carr Rd and 108th Ave SE. Existing vehicular connections to abutting uses are established. However, it appears the site plan does not provide code required connections to neighboring properties (specifically to the east) or to the sidewalk proposed along SE 174t St. As recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the applicant to provide additional pedestrian connections to the circulation system. . 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 F. Schools. As a senior care facility, it is not anticipated that the proposal will create any increased demand for school services or facilities. G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling facilities. Under this standard, a minimum of 2 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area is required for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 4 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area is required for refuse deposit areas for a total of 324 feet for the project. The applicant is proposing to locate the refuse and recycle utility along the southern façade of the structure with an area totaling 388 square feet, which complies with the requirements of the code. However, the proposed elevations do not specify the proposed materials for the refuse and recycle enclosure. Therefore as recommended by staff a condition of approval requires the applicant to submit revised elevations notating proposed materials for the refuse and recycle enclosure. The enclosure shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood and shall be compatible the primary materials of the structure. H. Parking. The City’s parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. As noted at p. 7 of the staff report, RMC 4-4-080 requires a minimum of 56 parking spaces for the proposal. The proposal includes 56 parking spaces as required. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11 the number of bicycle parking spaces shall be 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces. Based on the proposal which requires a minimum 56 vehicle parking stalls, 6 bicycle parking stalls are required to be provided. The applicant is proposing bicycle rack, with 6 bicycle parking stalls, near the service/staff entrance. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Aesthetics. According to the staff report, the proposal will not adversely affect view corridors to shorelines and Mount Rainer. As noted previously, the project is subject to Design District “D” design guidelines, which provide detailed standards as to project design, including building materials, site configuration and transitions to adjoining uses. As detailed in the staff report, with recommended conditions adopted into this decision staff have found the proposal to be consistent with these design guidelines. Similarly, the staff report also finds consistency with the City’s landscaping standards. Since the proposal will not adversely affect view corridors and is consistent with the City’s detailed design and landscaping standards, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant aesthetic impacts. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment is located behind pitched mansard roof forms in order to prevent visibility from the street. The applicant did not provide details for surface 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment. As such, as recommended by staff, a condition of approval requires the applicant to provide a detailed screening plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The staff report does not identify whether loading areas will be located at the facility and it is unclear whether any are proposed. The conditions of approval will require that loading areas be located, designed and screened to minimize views from surrounding properties. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of a storage and dental office, a McDonald’s, a chiropractor office and multi-family housing. The proposed use is of less intensity than these uses and will not involve any buildings that are significantly out of scale with these uses. C. Light and glare. The application narrative indicates that building lighting will be utilized to complement the architecture of the building and to provide for safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Light and glare from the site would primarily consist of street lighting, security lighting, exterior lighting and headlights from vehicles entering or leaving the site. However, a lighting plan was not provided with the application. The conditions of approval require a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with City lighting standards, which include avoiding unnecessary light spillage onto adjoining properties. D. Noise. The City’s noise regulations, Chapter 8-7 RMC, sets the legislative standard for noise impacts and will adequately regulate noise when construction is completed. It is anticipated that most of the noise impacts would occur during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan that provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, control of dust, traffic controls, etc. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance regarding construction hours. Incidental noise may be generated by ambulances arriving and departing, and deliveries, when the trucks’/vans’ backup signals sound. However, the drop off/pick-up area has been located on the structures southern façade, which is located approximately 250 feet from the neighboring multi-family units. E. Critical Areas and Natural Features. The proposed development is within 50 feet of a coal mine hazard. There are no other critical areas located on site. According to a Coal Mine Hazard Study submitted by the applicant, prepared by Golder Associates, dated February 24, 2015, the subject site is located in a medium coal mine hazard zone as defined by RMC 4-3-050 (Exhibit 7). Medium coal mine hazards are defined as areas where mining workings are deeper than two-hundred feet for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than 15 times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. The site is not underlain by any mapped or known coal mine workings. However, due to the proximity of the adjacent coal seam, development on the site 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 may potentially be affected by mining related subsidence. Given the age of the mine workings and other factors it is likely that any subsidence that occurred as a result of the abandoned mines would have already occurred and a low risk of regional or trough subsidence exists on the site. The report however recommends potential measures in order to mitigate the low risk, which include: the avoidance of settlement of sensitive exterior building finishes (stucco); the increase of the fall of gravity utilities; and the increase of stiffness of foundation element. Therefore, the Environmental Review Committee (“ERC”) imposed a mitigation measure requiring a narrative within the final geotechnical report, discussing any measures employed in the final site/building design which serve to mitigate the low coal mine subsidence risk. If no measures are employed, the applicant shall provide justification for the exclusion of additional measures. As mitigated by the ERC, it is determined that potential coal mine hazards are sufficiently addressed to avoid significant adverse impacts. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review for all development in the CA zone. RMC 4-9-200(D)(b) requires site plan review by the hearing examiner for this project because it involves over 25,000 square feet of building area in the CA zone. RMC 4-2-060 provides that convalescent centers may be authorized in CA zones by administrative conditional use permit. RMC 4-3-100 grants approval authority for design review to staff unless hearing examiner review is required. All three of the aforementioned permits/approvals have been consolidated. RMC 4-8- 080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. Site Plan Review (Hearing Examiner) is a Type III permit (RMC 4-8-080(G)) with approval authority granted to the Hearing Examiner. The site plan Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the design review, conditional use and site plan approval. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use designation, the CA zoning classification, and Design District ‘A’. 3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D) and site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Design D review criteria are addressed through the conditional use and site plan criteria requiring compliance with City development standards Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 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. 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development and design standards as outlined in Findings of Fact No. 17,18, 19 and 22 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 of this decision, the applicant proposes a 13 foot high retaining wall, which is not compliant with the eight foot retaining wall height limit of RMC 4-4-040(E)(1). The conditions of approval require the applicant to revise its proposal in order to conform to RMC 4-4-040(E)(1). 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. 5. Staff noted in the staff report that the proposed location would not result in the overconcentration of convalescent services in the project area and there is nothing in the record to suggest anything to the contrary. 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. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(H), 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. 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposed pedestrian and vehicular circulation improvements provide for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. As further detailed in Finding No. 4(E), the proposal will not lower level of service below adopted levels, so no adverse circulation impacts to the surrounding area are anticipated. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 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. 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, 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. 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, Ex. 1-3, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. Further, as shown in Ex. 1-3 the proposal incorporates significant perimeter landscaping in order to buffer adjacent properties. The criterion is met. Site Plan 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. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 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. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. While the proposed structure is concentrated in one area, the northwest portion of the site, the scale and bulk of the structure is intended to articulate at varying widths and depths. The applicant is also proposing canopies, enhanced landscaping and street furniture which enhance the pedestrian experience. While the applicant has incorporated design elements to reduce the apparent bulk of the building, additional elements should be incorporated into the design in order to break the monotony of the street facing façades and comply with the intent of this standard. Therefore, as recommended by staff a condition of design approval requires the applicant to submit revised elevations depicting additional design elements. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 4 and 5, proper screening and/or design location will be implemented to conceal refuse and recyclable areas and equipment. It is unclear if loading areas are proposed or what will be done to conceal them from view, so the conditions of approval will require the issue to be addressed during construction review. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely impact any views of significant natural features. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the City’s landscaping standards assure that the proposal will minimize the aesthetic impacts of the project, which includes providing transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce light and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project. The proposal is also of a type to not create any significant noise impacts and any such impacts will be adequately mitigated by the City’s noise regulations as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. Lighting impacts are also addressed by the conditions of approval to ensure no significant adverse light impacts. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 14. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with the utility of the project. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal does not create any adverse aesthetic impacts and is fully compatible with adjoining uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation and is well integrated into adjoining vehicular and pedestrian improvements, thus providing for a well-integrated project scale and design with vehicular and pedestrian needs. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, the landscaping for the proposal provides for better aesthetics and helps define parking areas and open spaces. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. 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; 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 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. 15. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. The staff report does not address loading and delivery, so that issue will be addressed by the conditions of approval. The conditions of approval require the applicant to consider the integration of a transit shelter in the project design. The applicant is proposing bicycle parking facilities (a bike rack) that complies with the City’s bicycle parking standards. 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. 16. As conditioned, the proposal provides for open space focal points and adequate areas for passive and active recreation areas as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). 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. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. The project is not phased. DECISION 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 As conditioned below, the site plan and conditional use permit applications as depicted in Exhibit 2 satisfy all applicable permitting criteria for the reasons identified in the findings and conclusions of this decision. The site plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated November 2, 2015. 2. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include additional interior parking lot landscaping to break continuous parking aisles and reflect compliance with the retaining wall requirements of the code. The revised landscape plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed screening plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 4. The applicant shall be required to revise the site and grading plans in order to comply with the maximum retaining wall heights. The revised site and grading plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes specifications for pedestrian amenities that add to the pedestrian experience and the human scale intended for the development. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 6. The applicant shall submit revised elevations notating proposed materials for the refuse and recycle enclosure. The enclosure shall be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood and shall be compatible the primary materials of the structure. The revised elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan connecting the interior pedestrian network to SE 174th St sidewalk. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit approval. 8. The applicant shall revise the site plan to depict a differentiation in materials for all pedestrian connections within parking areas and/or drive aisles on site. The revised site plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 9. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements including lighting fixtures, contrasting materials, or special detailing along the northern and western facades (amenities such as outdoor group seating, benches, transit shelters, fountains, or public art shall be provided). The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 10. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other high quality material. 11. The applicant shall be required to submit a conceptual sign package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Proposed signage shall be compatible with the building’s architecture and exterior finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The conceptual sign package shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to sign permit approval. 12. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit review. 13. All proposed loading areas shall be separated from parking and pedestrian areas and shall be located, designed and screened to minimize views from surrounding properties. DATED this 22nd day of December, 2015. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th floor, (425) 430-6510. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation.