Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport_Admin_Taco Bell A. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT & DECISION  DECISION:  APPROVED  APPROVED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS  DENIED  REPORT DATE: August 8, 2017  Project Name: Taco Bell Modifications  Owner: Washington Federal, NA, 425 Pike Street, Seattle, WA 98101  Applicant: Steve Pulcheon, Taco Bell of America, LLC, 1 Glen Bell Way, Irvine, CA 92618  Contact: Rafia Darwish, GPD Group, 400 N 34th Street, Suite 216, Seattle, WA 98103  File Number: LUA17-000288  Project Manager: Jill Ding, Senior Planner  Project Summary: The applicant is requesting two modifications for the construction of a new 1,856 square foot Taco Bell within the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone and Urban Design District D. One modification request is from the City's adopted Urban Design regulations to reduce the amount of transparent windows and doors. The urban design regulations require that along facades visible to the public, 50 percent of the facade between 4 and 8 feet in height shall be comprised of transparent windows and doors. The applicant has indicated that this requirement would be met along the building sides which face NE 4th Street and Whitman Court, however it is not feasible to meet this requirement on the south and west sides of the building as this is where the freezer and kitchen area is located. The applicant has requested a second modification to the Parking Regulations to exceed the maximum number of 8 permitted parking stalls and instead provide a total of 22 parking stalls. A wellhead protection area, zone 2, is mapped on the project site. A wetland and type Non-Fish Seasonal stream (Ns) are mapped off site to the west.  Project Location: 4225 NE 4th Street  Site Area: 31,865 square feet (0.73 acres)   B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Staff Report  Exhibit 2: Site Plan  Exhibit 3: Building Elevations  Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan   C. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner(s) of Record: Washington Federal, NA 425 Pike Street Seattle, WA 98101  Zoning Classification: CA  Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Commercial Mixed Use (CMU)  Existing Site Use: Vacant  Critical Areas: Wellhead Protection Area zone 2  Neighborhood Characteristics:   North: Highland Shopping Center, CA zone  East: Post Office, CA zone  South: Whitman Court Townhomes, CA zone  West: Maplewood Creek, CA zone  Site Area: 0.73 acres  D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date  Comprehensive Plan N/A 5758 06/22/2015  Zoning N/A 5758 06/22/2015  Annexation N/A 2308 03/13/1967   E. FINDINGS OF FACT (FOF): The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the above master application for review on May 15, 2017. The project site is located at 4225 NE 4th Street. The project site is currently vacant. Access to the site would be provided via driveway access off of NE 4th Street and Whitman Court NE. The property is located within the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The site is located within the CA zoning classification. A wellhead protection area, zone 2, is mapped on the project site. A wetland and type Ns stream are mapped off site to the west. Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The site is designated Commercial and Mixed Use (CMU) on the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map. The intention of this designation is to transform strip commercial development into business districts through the intensification of uses and with cohesive site planning, landscaping, signage, circulation, parking, and the provision of public amenity features. The proposal is compliant with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Compliance Comprehensive Plan Analysis  ( Goal L-BB: Maintain a high quality of life as Renton grows by ensuring that new development is designed to be functional and attractive.  ( Goal L-FF: Strengthen the visual identity of Renton and its Community Planning Areas and neighborhoods through quality design and development.   Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-3-100E.5, which states that “Any facade visible to the public shall be comprised of at least fifty percent (50%) transparent windows and/or doors for at least the portion of the ground floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as measured on the true elevation).” The identification of all 4 sides of the proposed drive-thru restaurant as visible to the public, and the resulting >50% transparency requirement for every facade is impractical for the functionality and overall efficiency of the proposed restaurant. The applicant proposes to identify the two facades facing public streets as those facades that would meet the minimum glazing requirements. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-3-100 and RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, as noted below: Compliance Modification Criteria and Analysis   Urban Design Regulation Modification Analysis:  Compliance not yet demonstrated The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and guidelines in subsections E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, and E7 of the design regulations Staff Comment: Compliance with this requirement is deferred to building permit review.  ( The requested modification meets the intent and guidelines of the applicable design standard; Staff Comment: The requested modification meets the intent and guidelines of the Ground Level Details section of the Urban Design Regulations as the proposed facadeelements that would make them visually interesting and reinforce the human-scale of the pedestrian environment. See further discussion below under Modification Analysis criterion b.  ( The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole; Staff Comment: See further discussion below under Modification Analysis criterion c.  ( The deviation manifests high quality design; and Staff Comment: As further discussed below under Modification Analysis criterion b, the applicant has implemented a green wall and some clerestory windows, which coupled with a recommended condition of enhanced landscaping would result in a high quality design.   ( The deviation manifests high quality design; and Staff Comment: As further discussed below under Modification Analysis criterion b, the applicant has implemented a green wall and some clerestory windows, which coupled with a recommended condition of enhanced landscaping would result in a high quality design.  ( The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways. Staff Comment: The requested modification would involve the replacement of the required ground floor windows along the south and west elevations with clerestory windows, a green wall, and enhanced landscaping (as conditioned below), which would serve to enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting streets and adjacent pedestrians walkways through the Whitman Court development.   Modification Analysis:  ( Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: See FOF 8, Comprehensive Plan Analysis.  Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The applicant’s requested modification proposes to identify two public facades (as opposed to four), which are those facades facing the public streets (NE 4th Street and Whitman Court NE). On these facades the proposed Taco Bell would comply with the 50 percent transparent windows and doors requirement. The southern and western elevations, where the minimum glazing requirements are not practical due to the location of the freezer and cooler at the back of the house, the applicant is proposing architectural treatments to enhance the look of these facades in lieu of the required windows and doors. The applicant is proposing on the west elevation an “L” shaped vegetation screen wall that will support evergreen climbing vines. On the inside face of the southern elevation one finds back of house shelving and very large kitchen equipment. The applicant is proposing to install a vegetation screen wall that will support evergreen climbing vines as well as clerestory windows. In addition, the applicant has proposed elevations that include a base, middle and top. They are proposing to ground the building with a Gauntlet Gray SW7019 tone painted over a smooth face cementitious tongue and groove board. The field color chosen for both the middle and top of the elevations is Whitetail SW7103 painted over cementitious tongue and groove boards with a rough-cut cedar profile. At the location with which the canopy contacts the building elevation, a reveal of equal height will be subtly carried about the building with a smooth face panel, sitting proud of the neighboring siding and painted in the same Whitetail field color. The use of the siding and choice of color pallet are similar to the adjacent development “The Parc” and together, contribute to a cohesive block. The applicant believes that the current proposal would meet the objectives of appearance intended by the Code requirements as well as be good for the environment. Staff concurs the proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and maintainability intended by the code requirements and that the applicant’s proposal would adequately mitigate for the absence of the 50 percent windows and door requirements along the south and west building facades, provided that high quality building materials and color variations are selected for the building facades. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a materials board including paint colors be provided at the time of building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.   Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The applicant’s requested modification proposes to identify two public facades (as opposed to four), which are those facades facing the public streets (NE 4th Street and Whitman Court NE). On these facades the proposed Taco Bell would comply with the 50 percent transparent windows and doors requirement. The southern and western elevations, where the minimum glazing requirements are not practical due to the location of the freezer and cooler at the back of the house, the applicant is proposing architectural treatments to enhance the look of these facades in lieu of the required windows and doors. The applicant is proposing on the west elevation an “L” shaped vegetation screen wall that will support evergreen climbing vines. On the inside face of the southern elevation one finds back of house shelving and very large kitchen equipment. The applicant is proposing to install a vegetation screen wall that will support evergreen climbing vines as well as clerestory windows. In addition, the applicant has proposed elevations that include a base, middle and top. They are proposing to ground the building with a Gauntlet Gray SW7019 tone painted over a smooth face cementitious tongue and groove board. The field color chosen for both the middle and top of the elevations is Whitetail SW7103 painted over cementitious tongue and groove boards with a rough-cut cedar profile. At the location with which the canopy contacts the building elevation, a reveal of equal height will be subtly carried about the building with a smooth face panel, sitting proud of the neighboring siding and painted in the same Whitetail field color. The use of the siding and choice of color pallet are similar to the adjacent development “The Parc” and together, contribute to a cohesive block. The applicant believes that the current proposal would meet the objectives of appearance intended by the Code requirements as well as be good for the environment. Staff concurs the proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and maintainability intended by the code requirements and that the applicant’s proposal would adequately mitigate for the absence of the 50 percent windows and door requirements along the south and west building facades, provided that high quality building materials and color variations are selected for the building facades. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a materials board including paint colors be provided at the time of building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager.  Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the south and west elevations, seeking the requested modification, will be visually appealing through the installation of clerestory windows and vertical landscaping and would meet the guidelines of RMC 4-3-100E.5 for Ground Level Details. Staff concurs that the applicant’s proposed embellishments to the south and west facades would adequately mitigate for the absence of the 50 percent windows and doors required, provided that enhanced landscaping is included along the west elevation to further screen the west/rear building façade in addition to the proposed vegetative screen wall. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a detailed landscape plan be submitted at the time of building permit review including enhanced landscaping, in lieu of the gravel proposed along the west/rear building elevation. The enhanced landscaping in this area should provide additional screening and enhance the ability of the vegetative screen wall to improve the appearance of this façade. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. It is not anticipated that the requested modification would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity if this condition of approval is met.  ( Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘b’.  ( Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘b’.  ( Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘c’.  Modification Analysis: The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-4-080 Parking Regulations. The Parking Regulations require a minimum and maximum of 1 stall per 75 square feet of dining area. Based on the proposed dining area of 581 SF, (581 / 75 = 7.74) approximately 8 parking stalls are required as a minimum and maximum. Because the proposal provides 20 stalls, exceeding the maximum allowable, a modification is being requested. The proposal is compliant with the following modification criteria, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, if all conditions of approval are met. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested modification, as noted below: Compliance Modification Criteria and Analysis  ( Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and objectives. Staff Comment: See FOF 8, Comprehensive Plan Analysis.   Compliant if Conditions of Approval are Met Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. Staff Comment: The applicant contends that the site has been designed to meet vehicular safety, function, appearance, and environmental protection. The proposed number of parking stalls, 20, meets the functional needs of Taco Bell, and does not intend to be excessive in any way. The landscape plan has been designed to exceed the minimum standards of the parking lot landscaping requirements, while providing a screen to the proposed parking area. Compact stalls have been proposed in the south row of parking in order to limit the amount of impervious area and create space for additional landscaping. Stormwater quality and quantity control will be provided to ensure environmental protection and maintainability. The project proposes to connect to the existing stormwater detention pond and water quality treatment facility which was designed to include both the Whitman Court development, and the Taco Bell site. The landscape planting area along the southern portion of the parking lot includes gravel. The proposal for gravel in this area would not provide a sufficient screen of the parking lot from the townhomes to the south of the project site as the applicant contends. In addition, a landscaped tree island within the southern parking area would further breakup the surface parking and enhance the appearance of the additional parking spaces. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a detailed landscaping plan be provided at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The detailed landscape plan shall replace the gravel proposed within the south planting area with landscaping that would provide screening of the parking lot from the townhomes to the south of the project site and shall include an additional tree island (measuring 8 feet by 12 feet) within the south row of parking spaces. Staff concurs the proposed modification would meet the objectives of function and maintainability intended by the code requirements and that the additional parking stalls requested would not result in an excessive amount of parking on the project site, provided the above condition of approval is met.  ( Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: The proposed parking and drive-thru lane are located south of the proposed building, and a 24’ drive aisle and landscaping separate the parking area from the development south of the site. The parking area is contained within the site and as conditioned above, would be via landscaping in all directions. By providing the necessary number of parking stalls for Taco Bell operation, the additional parking provided will prevent customers from parking at adjacent sites. It is not anticipated that the requested modification would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity.  ( Conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘b’.  ( Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘b’.  ( Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Staff Comment: See comments under criterion ‘c’.   I. CONCLUSIONS: The subject site is located in the Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) Comprehensive Plan designation and complies with the goals and policies established with this designation, see FOF 8. The proposed Urban Design Regulation modification comply with the Modification Criteria provided the applicant complies with City Code and all conditions of approval, see FOF 9. The proposed Parking Regulation modification complies with the Modification Criteria provided the application complies with City Code and all condition of approval, see FOF 10. J. DECISION: The Taco Bell Urban Design Regulation and Parking Regulation Modifications, File No. LUA17-000288, as depicted in Exhibit 2, are approved, subject to the following conditions: A materials board including paint colors shall be provided at the time of building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. The detailed landscape plan shall include: Enhanced landscaping, in lieu of the gravel proposed along the west/rear building elevation. The enhanced landscaping in this area should provide additional screening and enhance the ability of the vegetative screen wall to improve the appearance of this façade; Replacement of the gravel proposed within the south planting area with landscaping that would provide screening of the parking lot from the townhomes to the south of the project site; and An additional tree island (measuring 8 feet by 12 feet) within the south row of parking spaces. DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURE:   Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Date   TRANSMITTED this 8th day of August, 2017 to the Owner/Applicant/Contact: Owner: Applicant: Contact:  Washington Federal, NA 425 Pike Street Seattle, WA 98101 Steve Pulcheon Taco Bell of America, LLC 1 Glen Bell Way Irvine, CA 92618 Rafia Darwish GPD Group 400 N 34th Street, Suite 216 Seattle, WA 98103   TRANSMITTED this 8th day of August, 2017 to the Parties of Record: No Parties of Record     TRANSMITTED this 8th day of August, 2017 to the following: Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Amanda Askren, Property Services Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Fire Marshal K. LAND USE ACTION APPEALS, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, & EXPIRATION: The administrative land use decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within 14 days of the decision date. APPEAL: This administrative land use decision will become final if not appealed in writing to the Hearing Examiner on or before 5:00 PM on August 22, 2017. An appeal of the decision must be filed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680), together with the required fee to the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. RMC 4-8-110.B governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, (425) 430-6510. EXPIRATION: The Modification decision will expire two (2) years from the date of decision. A single one (1) year extension may be requested pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. RECONSIDERATION: Within 14 days of the decision date, any party may request that the decision be reopened by the approval body. The approval body may modify his decision if material evidence not readily discoverable prior to the original decision is found or if he finds there was misrepresentation of fact. After review of the reconsideration request, if the approval body finds sufficient evidence to amend the original decision, there will be no further extension of the appeal period. Any person wishing to take further action must file a formal appeal within the 14-day appeal time frame. THE APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE: provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning the land use decision. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial decision, but to Appeals to the Hearing Examiner as well. All communications after the decision/approval date must be made in writing through the Hearing Examiner. All communications are public record and this permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence in writing. Any violation of this doctrine could result in the invalidation of the appeal by the Court.