Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal Letter Outlot 2 - Lot 2 Enclosures, Part 1April 21, 2023 VIA E-MAIL (CITYCLERK@RENTONWA.GOV) City of Renton RE: The Home Depot - Deferral Decision Outlot 2 (C22004541 / DEF23001824 – Notice of Appeal Our File No.: 103058-270011 Dear City Clerk: Please accept this Notice of Appeal of the above-referenced decision entered by Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Director, on April 7, 2023 (the “Decision”), submitted on behalf of the Applicant, The Home Depot. A copy of the Decision is enclosed for reference. The Decision should be reversed because it reflects the City’s gross abuse of power, collateral attack on the Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision, PR 22-000065, dated August 9, 2022 (“Examiner’s Decision”), and imposes improvements that are not required by law, are arbitrary and capricious, and are infeasible. Finally, the Decision should be reversed as a matter of equity. Abuse of Power Just days before the Decision, the City notified The Home Depot that the City would not issue a certificate of occupancy for the site unless The Home Depot installed more than $220,000 in frontage improvements along Talbot Road. See enclosed notice email. The Home Depot objected, stating that it was not responsible for Talbot Road frontage improvements. See id. The City responded that The Home Depot’s only option was to seek a deferral of the frontage improvement requirement. See id. Maintaining its objection, The Home Depot sought and the City granted the above-referenced deferral Decision, requiring The Home Depot to post a $344,526.75 performance bond, or other security device, payable to the City. Decision at p. 1. In doing so, the Decision expressly states: “[t]he security device must be in place with the City prior to issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy.” Under protest and while expressly preserving its appeal rights, The Home Depot established a surety under protest with First American Title Company on April 21, 2023. The Home Depot’s establishment of the surety shall not be interpreted as acquiescence or agreement. The Home Depot established the surety under protest, to ensure the City did not have grounds upon which to Appeal Enclosures - Pg 1 of 48 deny The Home Depot’s certificate of occupancy. A delay or denial of the certificate of occupancy would cost The Home Depot millions of dollars in lost revenue and construction delays. To perfect the surety, The Home Depot attempted to assign the surety to the City, but the City would not accept an assignment that preserved The Home Depot’s appeal rights and required The Home Depot to sign an agreement contractually obligating The Home Depot to construct the disputed improvements. See Brianne Bannwarth April 21 Email. As of the time of this filing, The Home Depot proposed a second round of modified language, expressly stating its objection and preservation of appeal rights. If the City refuses to issue The Home Depot’s rightfully-earned certificate of occupancy unless The Home Depot waives its due process rights, that decision will constitute a gross abuse of power. Collateral Attack On August 9, 2022, the City of Renton Hearing Examiner approved The Home Depot’s site plan noting: “The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation infrastructure.” Examiner’s Decision, at page 5, lines 3-4 (5:3-4), Finding of Fact 4.F. A copy of the Examiner’s Decision is enclosed for reference. The SEPA review did not impose any off-site traffic mitigation or impose any fees. SEPA mitigation was limited to requiring frontage improvements along Grady Way. King County Metro has a proposed project for their I-Line along the project's Talbot Rd S frontage. The frontage improvements associated with the I-Line proposal have been incorporated into the site plan application proposal. Id. at 5:8-12 (emphasis added). In other words, The Home Depot was only responsible for “frontage improvements along Grady Way.” King County Metro was responsible for Talbot Road South frontage improvements. Id. See also Ex. 02_P_Conceptual Site Plan (indicating “FUTURE ROW IMPROVEMENTS” along frontage near Outlot 2); Ex. 20_Conceptual Landscape Plan (indicating Metro was to perform Talbot Road frontage improvements). Copies of Exhibits 02_P and 20 are enclosed for reference. Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-8-100.H.5 provides: “decisions…of the Hearing Examiner are final unless appealed or a reconsideration is requested and granted.” The City and The Home Depot sought (and received) reconsideration of portions of the Examiner’s Decision, unrelated to the issues recited above. Nevertheless, despite the Examiner’s clear finding, the City notified The Home Depot on April 3, 2023, that the City would not issue a certificate of occupancy for the site unless The Home Depot installed more than $220,000 in frontage improvements along Talbot Road. See enclosed April 3 notice email. The Home Depot objected, stating that it was not responsible for Talbot Road Appeal Enclosures - Pg 2 of 48 frontage improvements. See id. The City responded that The Home Depot’s only option was to seek a deferral of the frontage improvement requirement. See id. Maintaining its objection, The Home Depot complied and the City granted deferral request, requiring The Home Depot to post a $344,526.75 performance bond, or other security device, payable to the City. Decision at p. 1. In doing so, the City expressly stated: “[t]he security device must be in place with the City prior to issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy.” The City’s Talbot Road frontage improvement demand – which disregards and contradicts express findings of the Examiner’s Decision – is a blatant violation of the doctrine prohibiting collateral attack on a final land use decision. “[A]n agency cannot even revoke its own final land use decision unless it has appealed in the LUPA allotted time frame.” Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 162 Wn.2d 825, 844-845, 175 P.3d 1050 (2008) (citation omitted). “This holding emphasizes the value of finalizing land use decisions.” Id. (“Samuel's Furniture offers protection to private property owners and finality to the decisions of local government”). See also Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 939, 52 P.3d 1 (2002) (prohibiting county from reversing, belatedly appealing, or denying permits related to boundary line adjustment erroneously approved by its own planning director). Indeed, the Hearing Examiner in this case expressly reminded City staff that its authority after the Examiner’s Decision was limited: site plan review is elevated from staff review to hearing examiner review under limited express conditions as outlined in RMC 4-9-200D2. The conditions that trigger examiner review under RMC 4-9-200D2 are construed as also triggering examiner decision making authority over modification requests made under the site plan criteria as well. This interpretation helps avoid circumstances where staff level decisions are made that may result in inconsistencies or incompatibilities with subsequent, unanticipated design changes resulting from examiner level site plan review. Decision Upon Reconsideration, PR22-000065, Sept. 1, 2022, at p. 4 n.1. The Decision requiring The Home Depot to construct frontage improvements along Outlot 2 should be reversed. Improvements are not Required Even if the Hearing Examiner had not found Metro would be installing the Outlot 2 frontage improvements (which he did), RMC 4-6-060 does not require any street improvements for Outlot 2. RMC 4-6-060.C expressly says “[t]he standards in this section will be used…[w]henever a building permit is applied for or application made for a short plat or a full subdivision…” The Home Depot has not applied for a building permit or to short plat or subdivide Outlot 2. Furthermore, even if street improvements might otherwise be required, RMC 4-06-060.F.1.a. expressly exempts projects with less than 5,000 square feet of commercial development from street Appeal Enclosures - Pg 3 of 48 light requirements. Outlot 2 is already developed. There is zero (0) square footage of commercial development on Outlot 2. See enclosed Exhibits 02_P and 20. Because RMC 4-06-060 does not require street improvements related to Outlot 2, the Decision should be reversed and the Outlot 2 surety funds returned to The Home Depot. Bad Faith, Intentional Interference The Home Depot and City staff have been communicating weekly – if not daily – since the Examiner’s Decision eight months ago. There is no reason the City could not have raised the frontage improvement requirements earlier in the permitting process, so that The Home Depot would have had a reasonable time to respond. The City’s failure to do so, and decision to spring its “new” Talbot Road frontage requirements just days before The Home Depot was scheduled to receive its certificate of occupancy, placed The Home Depot in an unreasonable bind. The Home Depot has no good options. It can either post an unwarranted and wholly unjustified six-figure “security device” (which it has done under protest) – or face yet another delay in its opening date at the cost of millions of dollars in lost revenue, employee and construction financing costs. The City’s unjustifiable “reversal” of its Examiner’s Decision and conveniently delayed announcement of that reversal is arbitrary and capricious, clearly erroneous, smacks of bad faith, and can only be explained by negligence (at best) or an intentional effort to extort money from The Home Depot (at worst) in exchange for the certificate of occupancy The Home Depot had otherwise faithfully earned. Arbitrary and Capricious and Infeasible Even if The Home Depot were responsible for installing street frontage improvements along Talbot Road (which it is not, for the reasons stated above), City staff’s requirement that those improvements be performed before Metro completes its work in the same area is arbitrary and capricious, wasteful, will unnecessarily cost taxpayers money. The Hearing Examiner and City acknowledge Metro plans to perform additional improvements in precisely the same area as City staff are now requiring the Home Depot to install street lights and trees. If The Home Depot complies with City staff’s requirement, Metro will have to spend taxpayer dollars to remove the streetlights and trees, in order to perform the work it intends, and then spend additional tax payer dollars to reinstall those (or different) street lights and trees when the work is done. This requirement is wasteful, unnecessary, and in light of the mutual agreement that Metro’s project is ultimately responsible, the requirement for duplicative work is arbitrary and capricious. Equitable Estoppel Finally, the City should be equitably estopped from imposing Talbot Road frontage improvement requirements at this late date. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 4 of 48 “It is self-evidently unfair to permit” an agency “to adopt and publicly distribute an interpretive policy memorandum” or land use decision “and later deny the [decision’s] plain reading after contractors have relied upon it to their detriment.” Silverstreak, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 159 Wn.2d 868, 889-90, 154 P.3d 891 (2007). Companies “must be able to rely on the plain meaning of regulations and Department interpretations, without fear that a state agency will later penalize them by adopting a different interpretation after they have” made business decisions in reliance on that decision. Id. See also State ex rel. Shannon v. Sponburgh, 66 Wn.2d 135, 143, 401 P.2d 635 (1965) (equitably estopping liquor license reversal after business had incurred significant expense “in good faith in reliance upon [agency’s] solemn written commitment”). The City sought reconsideration of certain elements in the Decision, and did not seek reconsideration of the frontage improvement portions of the Decisions. See Decision Upon Reconsideration, attached. It should not be afforded a third bite at the apple now. For all of these reasons and such other and further evidence and argument as may be provided at a hearing on this appeal, Home Depot respectfully requests the requirements for the street frontage improvements near Outlet 2, as expressed in the Decision be reversed and the surety released. Best regards, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. Maren L. Calvert MLCA Enclosures: 1. Deferral Decision Outlot 2 2. Hearing Examiner’s Final Decision 3. April 3 & 7, 2023 Email exchange 4. Brianne Bannwarth April 21 Email. 5. Hearing Exhibit 02_P 6. Hearing Exhibit 20 7. Examiner’s Decision Upon Reconsideration PDX\103058\270011\MLCA\36458593.2 Appeal Enclosures - Pg 5 of 48 Demo Demo existing Sidewalk 5140 SF 7,710.00$ Demo Existing Landscaping 9790 SF 9,790.00$ Demo Tree 6"3 EA 600.00$ Demo Tree 12"10 EA 2,000.00$ Demo Subtotal 20,100.00$ Electrical/Comm Existing Communication line to be undergrounded 1 LS 50,000.00$ Existing Electrical line to be undergrounded 1 LS 125,000.00$ Demo Power Pole 2 EA 10,000.00$ Electrical/Comm Subtotal 185,000.00$ ROW improvements Install B21 Bus Shelter 1 EA 5,000.00$ Bus Landing Pad w/ Thickened Edge 1061 SF 7,427.00$ New Concrete Sidewalk 2492 SF 11,214.00$ Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete 45 SF 225.00$ ROW improvements Subtotal 23,866.00$ ROW Lighting Salvage and Deliver Existing Lighting Equipment 6 EA Incl. Cyclone Domia Luminaires 3 EA Incl. Cyclone Domia Mini Luminaires 9 EA Incl. Type 1 Junction Box 6 EA 250,000.00$ ROW Lighting Subtotal 250,000.00$ Plaza Concrete Sidewalk 129 SF 580.50$ Decorative Pavement 502 SF 5,020.00$ ADA Ramps 2 ea 5,000.00$ Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete 389 SF Deferral Application (Outlot 2) 4.3.2023 Plaza Subtotal 10,600.50$ Landscaping & Irrigation Tree Type GE 6 EA Incl. Tree Type .. (Oregon White Oak)15 EA Incl. Tree Type CR 3 EA 25,000.00$ Landscaping & Irrigation Subtotal 25,000.00$ Grady Total 514,566.50$ Grady Talbot OULTOT 1 Improvement Estimate Appeal Enclosures - Pg 6 of 48 Demo Demo Tree 6"1 EA 200.00$ Demo Tree 12"2 EA 400.00$ Demo Tree 18"12 EA 2,400.00$ Demo Landscaping 7539 SF 3,769.50$ Demo Subtotal 6,769.50$ Landscaping & Irrigation Planting Type AU 4496 SF Incl. Planting Type SK 75 EA Incl. Tree Type - Oregon White Oak 6 EA Incl. Tree Type - PY 6 EA Incl. Tree Type - CR 2 EA Incl. Tree Type - RP 2 EA 45,000.00$ Landscaping & Irrigation Subtotal 45,000.00$ ROW Lighting Cyclone Domia Luminaires 3 EA Incl. Cyclone Domia Mini Luminaires 5 EA Incl. Type 1 Junction Box 5 EA 175,000.00$ ROW Lighting Subtotal 175,000.00$ Talbot Total 226,769.50$ Total 741,336.00$ Appeal Enclosures - Pg 7 of 48 S. GRADY WAYUPSITE AREATHE HOME DEPOT PARCEL11.68 AC508,870 SFOUTLOT 11.44 AC62,773 SFOUTLOT 21.90 AC82,611 SFROW DEDICATION AREA0.36 AC15,546 SF TOTAL SITE AREA15.38 AC669,800 SFBUILDING AREATHE HOME DEPOT135,745 SF(THD NET FLOOR AREA)130,460 SF)MEZZANINE1,451 SF SUBTOTAL137,196 SFGARDEN CENTER8,246 SFVESTIBULES0 SF TOTAL THD AREA145,442 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA145,442 SFLOT COVERAGE29%BUILDING HEIGHTMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT50'EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT24'BULK REGULATIONSREQUIREDPROVIDEDFRONT SETBACK (BLDG.)15'/20' MAX67.4'SIDE SETBACK (BLDG.)0'29.4'REAR SETBACK (BLDG.)10'*37.2'LANDSCAPE BUFFER 35'25'LOT COVERAGE65% MAX20%FLOOR AREA RATIOTBD20%*10' LS (FREEWAY FRONTAGE)PARKING REQUIREDTHE HOME DEPOT1/500 SF261 STALLSGARDEN CENTER0.5/1000 SF4 STALLS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED265 STALLSPARKING PROVIDEDFRONT FIELD189 STALLSSIDE FIELD / REAR135 STALLS PHASE 1 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED324 STALLS PHASE 3 PARKING LOSS-43 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED281 STALLSINCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDACCESSIBLE STALLS (8 req. @ 301-400)8 STALLSPRO PARKING8 STALLSLOAD-N-GO2 STALLSTHD TRUCK RENTAL6 STALLSTRAILER DISPLAY5 STALLSTHD EQUIPMENT RENTAL10 STALLSNOT INCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDSHED DISPLAY8 STALLSSEASONAL SALES AREA10,082 SF42 STALLSBICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED10%27 STALLSPARKING PROVIDED30 STALLSSURFACESPARKING LOT LANDSCAPE191,261 SFPAVEMENT478,539 SFZONING CLASSIFICATIONJURISDICTIONCITY OF RENTONZONING CLASSIFICATIONCOMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA)THD USE PERMITTED BY RIGHTYESAPN202305-9007, 172305-9183, 915460-0010STOPYIELDIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSTED-40-4022HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT PR22-000065 LUA21-000456HOME DEPOTCIVIL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT10/12/202255LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERSC22003168SITE PLAN - NORTHC1.061" = 50'SITE INFORMATION:IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:IMPROVEMENT NOTES:STRIPING NOTES:GENERAL NOTES:SURVEY NOTES:FACADE FACING S GRADY WAYTOTAL FACADE489 LF WEATHER PROTECTED FACADE46.5+63.9+30.8+90.1+30.8+68.9 +33.4 364.4 LF (75%)R-042206OUTLOT 1 REQUIRED row IMPROVEMENTS : 8' PLANTER 8' SIDEWALK 2 ADA RAMPS (CORNER OF TALBOT/GRADY) CORNER PLAZASTREETLIGHTS AND PED LIGHTS PER CITYSTANDARDS UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEADLINES/POLES 4 APS PUSH BUTTONS LANDSCAPING/IRRIGATIONhome depot is responsible for fullimprovements for outlot 1 on grady.required improvements may be deferred. rightof way dedication must be completed beforetco/co.Appeal Enclosures - Pg 8 of 48 TALBOT RD S(WETLAND )STOPYIELDIN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY OF RENTON STANDARDSTED-40-4022HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT PR22-000065 LUA21-000456HOME DEPOTCIVIL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT10/12/202255LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERSC22003168SITE PLAN - SOUTHC1.171" = 50'SITE INFORMATION:IMPROVEMENT LEGEND:STRIPING NOTES:GENERAL NOTES:SURVEY NOTES:IMPROVEMENT NOTES:SITE AREATHE HOME DEPOT PARCEL11.68 AC508,870 SFOUTLOT 11.44 AC62,773 SFOUTLOT 21.90 AC82,611 SFROW DEDICATION AREA0.36 AC15,546 SF TOTAL SITE AREA15.38 AC669,800 SFBUILDING AREATHE HOME DEPOT135,745 SF(THD NET FLOOR AREA)130,460 SF)MEZZANINE1,451 SF SUBTOTAL137,196 SFGARDEN CENTER8,246 SFVESTIBULES0 SF TOTAL THD AREA145,442 SF TOTAL BUILDING AREA145,442 SFLOT COVERAGE29%BUILDING HEIGHTMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT50'EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT24'BULK REGULATIONSREQUIREDPROVIDEDFRONT SETBACK (BLDG.)15'/20' MAX67.4'SIDE SETBACK (BLDG.)0'29.4'REAR SETBACK (BLDG.)10'*37.2'LANDSCAPE BUFFER 35'25'LOT COVERAGE65% MAX20%FLOOR AREA RATIOTBD20%*10' LS (FREEWAY FRONTAGE)PARKING REQUIREDTHE HOME DEPOT1/500 SF261 STALLSGARDEN CENTER0.5/1000 SF4 STALLS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED265 STALLSPARKING PROVIDEDFRONT FIELD189 STALLSSIDE FIELD / REAR135 STALLS PHASE 1 TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED324 STALLS PHASE 3 PARKING LOSS-43 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED281 STALLSINCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDACCESSIBLE STALLS (8 req. @ 301-400)8 STALLSPRO PARKING8 STALLSLOAD-N-GO2 STALLSTHD TRUCK RENTAL6 STALLSTRAILER DISPLAY5 STALLSTHD EQUIPMENT RENTAL10 STALLSNOT INCLUDED IN PARKING PROVIDEDSHED DISPLAY8 STALLSSEASONAL SALES AREA10,082 SF42 STALLSBICYCLE PARKINGPARKING REQUIRED10%27 STALLSPARKING PROVIDED30 STALLSSURFACESPARKING LOT LANDSCAPE191,261 SFPAVEMENT478,539 SFZONING CLASSIFICATIONJURISDICTIONCITY OF RENTONZONING CLASSIFICATIONCOMMERCIAL ARTERIAL (CA)THD USE PERMITTED BY RIGHTYESAPN202305-9007, 172305-9183, 915460-0010R-042207OUTLOT 1 REQUIRED row IMPROVEMENTS : 8' PLANTER 8' SIDEWALK 2 ADA RAMPS (CORNER OF TALBOT/GRADY) CORNER PLAZASTREETLIGHTS AND PED LIGHTS PER CITYSTANDARDS UNDERGROUNDING OF OVERHEADLINES/POLES 4 APS PUSH BUTTONS LANDSCAPING/IRRIGATIONhome depot is responsible for:outlot 1, talbot: street lighting and streettrees. required improvements may bedeferred. right of way dedication must becompleted before tco/co.Appeal Enclosures - Pg 9 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Home Depot Hearing examiner site plan and street modification. PR22-000065 FINAL DECISION SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting approval of a hearing examiner site plan and street modification for the redevelopment of the former Sam’s Club located at 901 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. The applications are approved subject to conditions. The Applicant has raised four issues of outstanding disagreements with staff. One of those issues is resolved in favor of the Applicant, one in favor of the City and two are deferred for further evaluation and potential appeal to the Examiner. The issue resolved in favor of the Applicant is staff recommended Condition No. 13. That condition is not adopted by this Decision. Condition No. 13 required the Applicant to perform stream enhancement and monitoring to mitigate against construction of a proposed garden center within the buffer of a Type F stream. However, an exemption for mitigation applies to the project because the stream buffer is almost completely covered in the impervious surface of an access road and parking area. Further, the preponderance of evidence establishes that the Garden Center, to be built in an area currently covered with impervious surface, will have no impacts to the stream that necessitate mitigation. Condition No. 13 is discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5A2, pages 7-9 below. The issue resolved in favor of the City is fencing around the Applicant’s proposed Garden Center. The Applicant asserts that fencing height limits do not apply to its fence. The Renton Municipal Appeal Enclosures - Pg 10 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 2 Code (RMC) clearly dictates otherwise, imposing an eight-foot height limit for fences constructed in commercial zoning districts. Since a modification request has not yet been made, the Applicant is free to apply for a modification to increase fence height if it believes it can meet the criteria of those standards. The fencing issue is discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, p. 14 below. The remaining two other issues are left for further review. Applicant and staff disagree on whether the top of roof-top mechanical equipment needs to be screened from view and also whether existing power lines need to be undergrounded. The evidence presented on both issues is incomplete. Since both issues are arguably within the project design features presented for approval as part of this Examiner review, the conditions of approval expressly authorize that Examiner review can be revisited in an appeal of modification requests should the parties be unable to agree on how to comply with the RMC. The mechanical equipment is discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5E, page 11 and the powerline issues is discussed in Finding of Fact No. 4H, pages 6-7 below. TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1—29 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the July 26, 2022 hearing were entered into the record during the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Owner/Applicant. Clay Brasher, Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., 2455 Paces Ferry Rd, C19, Atlanta, GA 30339. 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the application was held on July 26, 2022 at 11:00 am, Zoom Meeting ID No. 946 7233 4580. Substantive: 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting approval of a hearing examiner site plan and street modification for the redevelopment of the former Sam’s Club located at 901 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. The proposed Home Depot project square footage would be comprised of a 109,800-square foot main building and a 32,580-square foot Garden Center. The existing building is one story and approximately 24 feet in height. The project site totals approximately 15.38 acres in area. The proposal includes the utilization of the four (4) existing curb cuts (two (2) off of Talbot Rd S and Appeal Enclosures - Pg 11 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 3 two (2) off of S Grady Way). The requested street modification proposes to retain the existing pavement width as well as a reduced right-of-way width along the S Grady Way and Talbot R S frontages. The existing parking lot would provide a total of 281 surface parking stalls. The Home Depot store proposes to display and sell various seasonal items in a designated seasonal sales area in a fenced parking lot. The Home Depot store also permanently displays outdoors a number of item s such as barbeques, patio furniture, and material and fencing displays within areas located along the front of the store. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Renton. The necessary infrastructure appears to be in place as it was adequate to serve Sam’s Club in the past. B. Police and Fire Protection. Fire protection would be provided by the Renton Regional Fire Authority and police service by the Renton Police Department. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposal, if the Applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. C. Drainage. In conjunction with the City’s stormwater regulations, the proposal mitigates all significant drainage impacts and provides for adequate and appropriate stormwater facilities. A Drainage Report, prepared by Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc., dated December 21, 2021 (Exhibit 7) was submitted with the application materials. The site is serviced by an existing stormwater system. Surface runoff is collected in various drain inlets throughout the site and then delivered via an underground storm line system. Stormwater runoff is then treated with existing oil separators and biofiltration basins. Stormwater is then discharged via a storm drain at the northwest side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm system and through a storm drain at the south corner of the site that outfalls into a forty-eight inch (48”) culvert under Talbot Rd S. The project is subject to full drainage review as it would include 2,000 sq. ft. of new impervious surface. The Applicant proposes to utilize the existing stormwater system and will not change the current discharging locations. The proposed improvements are anticipated to result in a reduction of impervious surfaces and an increase in landscaped areas, by approximately 1,527 sq. ft. The proposal will result in a slight decrease in off-site Appeal Enclosures - Pg 12 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 4 flows as a result of proposed improvements. For this reason, the project is exempt from installing new flow control devices. Because the project falls under commercial land use, it must adhere to Enhanced Basin WQ measures. As seen in the Existing Plans (Appendix F), the existing site currently utilizes (2) separate oil separator structures and (3) biofiltration basins to meet these WQ standards. The Applicant proposed to inspect, clean, and maintain said facilities for continued use. The 2022 Surface water system development fee is $0.84 per square foot of new impervious surface, but no less than $2,100.00. This is payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. D. Parks/Open Space. The project provides for adequate parks and open space because no open space is required of the project under City development standards. E. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation. The proposal provides for a safe and effective pedestrian and vehicular circulation system. The proposed site plan (Exhibit 2) includes three (3) pedestrian pathways that could connect the existing building to the public sidewalk on Grady Way. One is proposed along the south side of the northern driveway off of S Grady Way and would connect the entrance to the lumber sales area to S Grady Way. A second is proposed to connect the main building entrance to the sidewalk along S Grady Way. A third pedestrian connection is proposed along the western side of the west driveway off of Talbot Rd S to the entrance to the garden center. All proposed pedestrian walkways are proposed to be paved. In addition, a paved walking surface is proposed along the west façade of the Home Depot building to provide access to all building entries along this façade. The proposal would retain the four (4) existing curb cuts onto the project site, the existing vehicular pattern through the existing parking lot and around the building would largely remain in its current configuration. The existing drive aisle located to the west of the existing building would be shifted further to the west, displacing some of the existing surface parking, to accommodate the expanded canopy proposed for the lumber sales area. The existing loading and delivery area is located along the north building façade, away from the main surface parking and pedestrian pathways. From this circulation design, staff have determined that the existing and proposed vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be safe and efficient and provide adequate access for Appeal Enclosures - Pg 13 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 5 emergency vehicles. There being no evidence to the contrary, the staff findings on this issue are taken as verities. F. Transportation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation infrastructure. The Applicant prepared a traffic study, Ex. 11, that determined that the proposal would generate a net of an additional 43 AM peak hour trips and a reduction of 42 PM peak hour trips. The City’s concurrency review determined that since there are no new net trips generated by the proposal, the project meets the City’s concurrency standards and no transportation or impact fees are required unless imposed through SEPA review. The SEPA review did not impose any off-site traffic mitigation or impose any fees. SEPA mitigation was limited to requiring frontage improvements along Grady Way. King County Metro has a proposed project for their I-Line along the project’s Talbot Rd S frontage. The frontage improvements associated with the I-Line proposal have been incorporated into the site plan application proposal. G. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate parking as staff has determined that the proposal complies with applicable parking regulations. The parking regulations, RMC 4-4-080, require that retail sales provide a minimum and maximum of 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. In addition, uncovered commercial areas and outdoor nurseries are required to provide a minimum and maximum of 0.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail sales area in addition to an y parking requirements for buildings. According to the submitted site plan (Exhibit 2), the existing building has a net floor area of 130,460 sq. ft. with a 1,692 sq. ft. mezzanine for a total net floor area of 132,152 sq. ft. Based on a total net floor area of 132,152 sq. ft., the proposal would be required to provide a minimum and a maximum of 330 parking spaces on the project site. The proposal includes uncovered commercial areas for outdoor seasonal sales totaling 10,082 sq. ft. and a garden center and outdoor nursery area totaling 13,200 sq. ft. for a total combined outdoor commercial and nursery area of 23,282 sq. ft. A minimum and a maximum of 12 parking spaces would be required for the 23, 282 sq. ft. outdoor commercial and nursery area. The project site would require a minimum and a maximum of 342 parking spaces. There are a total of 374 parking spaces located on the project site, 8 of those spaces are proposed to be occupied by a shed display area, 42 spaces would be occupied by the seasonal sales area, and 19 spaces near the intersection of Talbot Rd S and S Grady Way would be impacted by the installation of onsite landscaping and the proposed public plaza, resulting in a total of 305 parking spaces that would be available for parking, which is 37 Appeal Enclosures - Pg 14 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 6 spaces less than the 342 parking spaces that would be required. In accordance with RMC 4- 4-080K or 4-4-080F10c., a modification to these standards could be granted subject to the review and approval of a parking study. A condition of approval requires that a revised site plan be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review that reconfigures the outdoor seasonal sales area and the shed display area within the surface parking lot to ensure that the required 342 onsite parking spaces are provided on the project site, unless a modification to these standards is approved in accordance with RMC 4-4-080K or 4-4- 080F10c. The proposed out lot configuration as shown on the site plan (Exhibit 2) would result in the removal of onsite parking that is currently available for Home Depot. Any future reconfiguration of the existing lot lines would be required to demonstrate that adequate parking is available to Home Depot in addition to any future proposed development. RMC 4-4-080F.11 requires the Applicant to provide bicycle parking at the rate of 10% of required vehicle parking stalls. Based on a requirement for 342 parking spaces noted above, a total of 341 bicycle parking spaces would be required for the proposed Home Depot. The proposed site plan (Exhibit 2) includes three (3) bike racks, however a bicycle rack parking detail was not provided and it does not appear that the proposed bike racks would provide sufficient bicycle parking to accommodate the required 34 bicycle parking spaces. To ensure compliance with the bicycle parking requirements, a condition of approval requires that a revised site plan and bicycle parking detail be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager demonstrating that the proposal would comply with the bicycle parking requirements as required in RMC 4-4-080F.11. H. Power. In its prior use, of similar intensity, the project site was served by adequate power and there is no reason to believe that power cannot continue to be provided within this fully developed part of the City. However, during the hearing the Applicant raised the issue of underground power transmission lines that extend across the project area. The undergrounding of the lines is not addressed in the staff report or recommended conditions of approval. However, the issue has been extensively debated between staff and applicant. Project advisory notes, Ex. 14, GC No. 1, identify that undergrounding will be required. RMC 4-6-090(C)(2) in general requires undergrounding of existing power lines if abutting required frontage improvements. However, the Applicant’s counsel has raised the issue of constitutional proportionality requirements and also the applicability of an exemption covered by RMC 4-6-090D1c, which exempts power lines over 55 kv. The City and Applicant disagreed during the hearing over whether the powerlines are over the RMC 4-6- 090D1c kv threshold and neither party was ready to present any hard evidence on that issue. The City and Applicant appeared to agree that the powerline issue was something that could still be further assessed and finally resolved after issuance of this decision. The Applicant 1 If the amount of required parking is reduced by City staff pursuant to 4-4-080E10c or4-4-080K, the amount of bicycle parking will be reduced as well to 10% of that number. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 15 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 7 expressly agreed to delay consideration of this issue for further City/Applicant discussion, subject to subsequent administrative appeal back to the examiner. Given these considerations, a condition of approval clarifies that the underground power issue is subject to further review and potential appeal to the examiner via an appeal of a modification request. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Pertinent impacts are addressed individually as follows: A. Critical Areas. A stream, wetland, seismic hazard area, wellhead protection area zone 2 protected slopes, and sensitive slopes are mapped on the site. Staff have found impacts to the critical areas to be adequately mitigated pursuant to the requirements of the City’s critical area standards. 1. Geologic Hazardous Areas. There are sensitive slopes (grades between 25 and 40%) and protected slopes (grades 40% or greater) located along the eastern portion of the project site. The proposed development does not include any additions to the east side of the building that would impact the sensitive and protected slopes. Any future development on the project site may trigger additional geotechnical analysis to determine if the proposal would adversely impact onsite sensitive or protected slopes. A seismic hazard area is mapped over the project site. A Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terracon, dated September 15, 2021 (Exhibit 5) was included with the project application materials. An analysis of the submitted geotechnical evaluation of the seismic hazard was included in the ERC Report (Exhibit 1) as well as the adopted SEPA Mitigation Measures. A condition of approval requires that the proposed project comply with the SEPA Mitigation Measures adopted with the Determination of Non-Significance that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC): a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terracon, dated September 15, 2021. b. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. 2. Streams. The project site is encumbered with a Type F stream and its associated 115-foot buffer. The Applicant is proposing its Garden Center addition to Appeal Enclosures - Pg 16 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 8 encroach into this 115-foot stream buffer. Existing impervious surfaces exempt the Garden Center from any stream buffer requirements. A staff recommended condition of approval requiring stream mitigation will not be adopted given this exemption and the absence of any discernable impacts to the stream. A Wetland and Stream Delineation Report, prepared by The Watershed Company, dated January 3, 2022 (Exhibit 6) was submitted with the land use application materials. Rolling Hills Creek is located along the fence immediately east of the parking lot. Rolling Hills Creek is classified as a Type-F stream, which requires a standard buffer of 115 feet in accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.2. Additionally, a 15-foot wide building setback is required beyond the stream buffers per RMC 4-3- 050G.2. The proposed garden center addition would be located approximately 85 feet from Rolling Hills Creek, within the required 115-foot buffer. The Applicant has requested an exemption finding for the Garden Center stream buffer encroachment in accordance with RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g) "Sites Separated from Critical Areas,” due to its separation from the stream by an existing surface parking lot and driveway access. RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g) states as determined by the Administrator, the Critical Areas Regulations may not apply to development proposed on sites that are separated from critical areas by pre-existing, intervening, and lawfully created structures, roads, or other substantial existing improvements. The intervening lots/parcels, roads, or other substantial improvements shall be found to: Separate the subject upland property from the critical area due to their height or width; and substantially prevent or impair delivery of most functions from the subject upland property to the critical area.” Staff has reviewed the request and concurs that the existing building as well as any required emergency access lanes would qualify as existing lawfully created structures or substantial existing improvements and would allow for the construction of the proposed garden center addition within the stream buffer. The required impact on buffer functions by the intervening impervious surfaces is in part supported by the Applicant’s critical areas report, Exhibit 6. The report applies a provision very similar2 to RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g), RMC 4-3-050G.2.6,. to conclude that the impervious parking surfaces of the project site impair buffer functions sufficiently to exempt those areas from wetland buffer requirements. Specifically, the report concluded that the “buffer of Wetland A consist of a 2 RMC 4-3-050G.2.6 provides in pertinent part that “areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface or sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can feasibly be removed, relocated or restored to provide better functions.” Appeal Enclosures - Pg 17 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 9 substantially developed surface, the large parking lot, which buffer functions are not provided.” The report did not address the parking lot’s impact on the functions of the stream buffer, on the mistaken understanding that no exemption would apply based on the parking lot improvements for the stream. The report evidently was unaware of the exemption available under RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g). Despite agreeing that RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g) exempts the project from stream buffer requirements (starting at the pavement edge), the staff report recommended a condition requiring stream buffer enhancement due to the addition of the proposed garden center. The staff report noted that the buffer encroachment meets the criteria of RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g). However, during the hearing staff indicated that the proposal in fact did not, because staff did not consider access roads as qualifying as intervening improvements that qualified the buffer area for exemption under RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g). Staff’s initial determination in the staff report that the project qualifies for exemption under RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g) necessarily involves the finding that the parking surface separating the garden center from the stream “substantially prevent or impair delivery of most functions.” This finding is consistent with the Applicant’s critical areas report, which concluded for generally the same parking area that for the wetland, “buffer functions are not provided” in the paved parking area. These findings are fully expected within a large impervious parking area. Staff’s qualification at hearing that the RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g) exemption doesn’t apply for pre-existing roads isn’t consistent with the premise that the area provides no buffer function as well as the plain meaning of RMC 4-3-050B.1.(g), which expressly identifies roads as qualifying as intervening improvements. Given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the garden center area (currently paved) and the area separating that area from the stream provide no buffer function. Given this finding, it is further reasonable to conclude that construction of the garden center will not impair buffer functions that don’t exist. Finally, there is no evidence in the record that the Garden Center will create any adverse impacts to the stream and none can be reasonably inferred given the extensive flow control and water quality protections afforded by the City’s stormwater regulations. In sum, there is no basis to conclude that the Garden Center would create adverse impacts to the stream. In the absence of such impacts and the absence of any regulation requiring mitigation, there is no basis to require added stream mitigation as recommended by staff. For these reasons, staff recommended Condition No. 13 will not be adopted by this Decision. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 18 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 10 3. Wellhead Protection Area. The project site is mapped within a wellhead protection area, zone 2. The project proposal includes the reuse of an existing building and surface parking lot. All applications for development permits for uses in which hazardous materials are stored, handled, treated, used or produced or which increase the quantity of hazardous materials stored, handled, treated, used, or produced at a location in the Wellhead Protection Area must comply with the Wellhead Protection Area requirements (RMC 4-3-050G.8) for reporting and/or containment. It is not anticipated that the proposal would require any grading or filling, however, if fill is brough onto the project site, a fill source statement would be required. 4. Wetlands. A Wetland and Stream Delineation Report, prepared by The Watershed Company, dated January 3, 2022 (Exhibit 6) was submitted with the land use application materials. The report identified one depressional wetland (Wetland A) on the southern portion of the project site. The report classified Wetland A as a Category III wetland with a habitat score five (5) points, requiring a standard buffer of 100 feet in accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050G.2. No site improvements are proposed that would impact Wetland A or its associated 100-foot buffer area, however the applicant is proposing to utilize existing surface parking spaces within the 100-foot wetland buffer area for designated “Shed Display”. The proposal to display sheds within the 100-foot wetland buffer would not be a permitted use as there appear to be alternative locations on the project site that could accommodate the shed display that are outside of the buffer. A condition of approval requires that the shed display be relocated outside of the required 100- foot wetland buffer and the 115-foot stream buffer. B. Tree Retention. The proposal provides for adequate preservation of trees because it is consistent with the City’s tree retention standards. An Existing Landscaping Plan (Exhibit 21) was submitted with the project application materials. The existing landscape plan includes existing trees as well as trees proposed to be removed. There are a total of 148 trees located on the project site, the applicant is proposing to remove 69 trees and retain 79 trees, which results in a total retention of fifty- three percent (53%), which exceeds the ten percent (10%) minimum retention requirement in a commercial zone. The submitted tree retention plan did not include tree protection measures for the protection of existing trees during project construction. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that a Final Tree Retention Plan be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall include tree protection measures to be installed to protect retained trees during construction in compliance with RMC 4-4-130. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 19 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 11 C. Compatibility. The proposal should not create any significant compatibility issues. The proposal primarily relies upon the use of an existing building. The proposed improvements are anticipated to result in a reduction of impervious surfaces and an increase in landscaped areas, by approximately 1,527 sq. ft. Surrounding uses are commercial and/or public with some apartment buildings to be built in the future. Given these factors and the lack of adverse impacts, the proposal is not found to create any significant compatibility issues over current use. D. Noise, Light, Glare and Privacy. The proposal will not create any noise, light or glare impacts. As to light and glare, a lighting plan was not provided with the application; therefore a condition of approval requires a lighting plan be provided at the time of building permit review. For the reasons identified under Finding of Fact No. 5C above, the proposal is not found to create any significant noise or privacy impacts over current use. The proposal is also subject to the City’s noise regulations. E. Views. The proposal will not significantly impact views. The proposal includes the reuse of an existing building and would not adversely impact existing views of surrounding development. As conditioned, the proposal will not create adverse aesthetic views of mechanical equipment. At hearing, the applicant noted that staff was requiring mechanical equipment to be screened from view for vehicles travelling on I-405, i.e. that the top of the equipment had to be screened from view. It is uncontested that passengers of vehicles travelling on I- 405 will be able to see the top of the building and the top of associated roof-top mechanical equipment. At hearing the Applicant’s representative testified that the project architect advised him that no one manufactures roof screening for the top of roof-top mechanical equipment. The architect also advised that any such screening would impair airflow and thereby reduce the equipment efficiency and lifespan. In contrast, the project planner testified that the City’s building official told her that such screening is possible and that he’s inspected such structures. The building official noted that disruption to airflow could be avoided by only screening three of the four sides of the units. Unfortunately, not much weight can be given to the hearsay testimony provided by the Applicant’s representative. It is hard to believe that it’s not feasible to construct some sort of grillwork or similar camouflaging that screens the top of the equipment from view while at the same time not interrupting airflow, or that three-sided screening wouldn’t work as testified by the City. Without the architect present to answer questions that clarify exactly how difficult it would be to camouflage the top of the equipment, there is insufficient evidence in the record to conclude that code requirements to minimize views of the equipment from surrounding properties has been met by leaving the top of the equipment exposed to view. Given that both staff and the Applicant have not fully aired this issue and have limited their evidence to hearsay testimony, the Applicant is authorized to request a Appeal Enclosures - Pg 20 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 12 modification with potential appeal to the examiner should staff and Applicant disagree on what is necessary to minimize views as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iii). F. Landscaping/Screening. The proposal provides for sufficient landscaping as staff has found the proposal to conform to the City’s landscaping requirements. A Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 20) was submitted with the land use application materials. The submitted landscape plan includes an eight foot (8’) wide street tree planting strip along the site’s S Grady Way and Talbot Rd S frontages. Along S Grady Way, the applicant is proposing to plant ginkgo biloba street trees and kinnikinnick. Along the Talbot Rd S street frontage, the applicant is proposing to plant spire cherry street trees with a ground cover of Virginia creeper. There are existing mature street trees along the site’s S Grady Way frontage. Some of these existing trees are located between the existing curb and sidewalk. Unless it is determined to be infeasible, these trees should be retained. A condition of approval requires that the existing street trees located between the curb and sidewalk along S Grady Way be retained, unless it is determined by the Current Planning Project Manager to be infeasible. Should it be determined that the trees are not able to be retained, the applicant shall be responsible for the replacement of these trees with a species approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. The submitted landscape plan includes a ten-foot (10’) onsite landscape strip along the site’s S Grady Way and Talbot Rd S street frontages. The submitted landscape plan also includes landscaping within the existing surface parking lot. Based on a total of 374 existing parking spaces on the project site, a total of 13,090 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping would be required. The applicant indicates that the proposal would include a total of 48,250 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping. However, it appears that the applicant is counting perimeter parking lot landscaping as interior parking lot landscaping, which is not permitted. In addition, it appears that the applicant is counting areas towards the interior parking lot landscaping which do not meeting the minimum eight feet (8') by twelve feet (12') dimensional requirements, which is not permitted. There also appear to be several parking spaces that would be located more than fifty feet (50’) from interior parking lot landscaped areas. In addition, the applicant is not proposing any parking lot landscaping within the surface parking areas located on proposed out lots 1 and 2. As a lot line adjustment, demonstrating compliance with all City requirements has not been approved, and all three of the existing, underlying parcels remain under common ownership, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the surface parking area on the out lots would also comply with the parking lot landscaping requirements, unless otherwise deferred by the Current Planning Project Manager. A condition of approval requires that a detailed landscape plan be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. Aesthetic impacts of storage areas are addressed by a condition of approval that requires areas proposed for outdoor storage shall be screened through a combination of fencing and landscaping around the perimeter of the storage areas. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 21 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 13 G. Scale and Overconcentration. The scale and location of the proposal are fully appropriate for its vicinity. Given that the proposal primarily involves an existing building, it must be concluded that the scale is appropriate for its location. In any event, the building is located on a 15.85 acre site, surrounded by acres of parking, adjacent to numerous other buildings of similar size. Given these factors, even absent its existing status, the building is of appropriate in scale and location for its vicinity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies Hearing Examiner site plan applications3 as Type III permits. The modification request is classified by RMC 4-8-080(G) as a Type I review. RMC 4-8- 080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The Type III reviews are the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for both permit applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. Substantive: 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is zoned Commercial Arterial and has a comprehensive plan land use designation of Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). 3. Review Criteria/Approval of Street Modification. RMC 4-9-200.E.3 governs the criteria for site plan review. Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Street modification standards are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D. The street modification findings and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the staff report are adopted by reference and it is concluded that the proposal meets the criteria for the street modification identified in Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 3. The modification identified in FOF No. 3 is approved on that basis. 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: 3 RMC 4-9-200D2bvi requires hearing examiner site plan review for projects involving more than 10 acres of project area. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 22 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 14 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. 4. The criterion is met. For the reasons outlined in Finding 17 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. For the reasons outlined in Finding 18 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with applicable land use regulations. The proposal is located in Urban Design District D and is compliant with those standards for the reasons outlined in Finding No. 20 of the staff report. The proposal is not subject to any planned action ordinance. At hearing the Applicant disputed staff’s restriction of fence height to eight feet as required by RMC 4-4-040E. The Applicant asserts that the height limit only applies to chain link fences and that it is proposing a 14.5 foot high “woven” fence that it says is necessary for the security of its outdoor storage. RMC 4-11-060 defines a “fence” as an “outdoor physical and/or visual barrier, railing, or other upright structure erected above ground and separating an area of ground.” The Applicant’s conceptual site drawings, Ex. 15, show the proposed “woven” fencing as an upright structure separating the garden center retail area from the parking lot area. It qualifies as a fence and hence is subject to the eight foot height limit. The Applicant is still free to apply for a modification if it believes it meets the criteria for modification of RMC 4-4-040E. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; Appeal Enclosures - Pg 23 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 15 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. 5. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5G for structures, FOF No. 4E for circulation and loading and storage, FOF No. 5E for views, FOF No. 5F for landscaping and 5D for lighting. 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. 6. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5C and 5D for structure placement; FOF No. 5G for structure scale and FOF No. 5F for landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate protection of natural features since trees are retained to the extent required by the City’s tree retention standards as identified in FOF No. 5B and the proposal will not adversely affect critical areas as outlined in FOF No. 5A. 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; Appeal Enclosures - Pg 24 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 16 ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 7. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in FOF No. 4E and 4F. Loading and delivery spaces are adequately addressed as noted in FOF No. 4E. The facility will be served by adequate transit and bicycle facilities (most notably bicycle parking spaces) for the reasons identified in FOF No. 4F and 4G. Safe and attractive pedestrian connections will be provided as noted in FOF No. 4E. 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. 8. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 4D. 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. 9. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5E. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 10. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in FOF No. 5A. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 11. The criterion is met for the reasons identified FOF 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. 12. No phasing is proposed. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 25 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 17 DECISION The proposed site plan and street modification are approved, 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 May 23, 2022: a. Construction on the project site shall comply with the recommendations of the submitted Geotechnical Report, prepared by Terracon, dated September 15, 2021. b. The applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the submitted geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that he/she has reviewed the construction and building permit plans and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. 2. A lot combination or other method to resolve the building encroachments, as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the proposed Home Depot. If an alternative method for removing the building encroachments is approved, the proposal shall demonstrate compliance with all aspects of the Renton Municipal Code (i.e. parking requirements). 3. The existing street trees located between the curb and sidewalk along S Grady Way shall be retained, unless it is determined by the Current Planning Project Manager to be infeasible. Should it be determined that the trees are not able to be retained, the applicant shall be responsible for the replacement of these trees with a species approved by the Current Planning Project Manager. 4. The vegetation proposed to be planted within the ten foot (10’) onsite landscape strip be planted in this order of preference: (a) native coniferous trees; (b) native deciduous trees; c) other native vegetation. 5. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, the detailed landscape plan shall include, but not be limited to: a. Interior parking lot landscaping (i.e. tree islands with a minimum dimension of eight feet (8') by twelve feet (12')) at a rate of 35 sq. ft. per parking space throughout the entire project site (i.e. Home Depot parcel as well as out lots 1 and 2, unless otherwise deferred by the Current Planning Project Manager); b. No parking space shall be more than fifty feet (50’) from an interior parking lot landscaped tree island; c. Trees shall be two inches (2") in diameter at breast height (dbh). At least one (1) tree for every six (6) parking spaces within the parking lot interior shall be planted and around the parking lot perimeter trees shall be planted at the average minimum rate of one tree per thirty (30) lineal feet of street frontage; Appeal Enclosures - Pg 26 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 18 d. Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area shall be planted. Up to fifty percent (50%) of shrubs may be deciduous; e. Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least ninety percent (90%) coverage of the landscaped area within three (3) years of installation. 6. A Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall include tree protection measures to be installed to protect retained trees during construction in compliance with RMC 4-4-130. The Final Tree Retention Plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Construction Permit Review. 7. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review that includes a minimum 730 sq. ft. of recyclables deposit areas and 1,459 sq. ft. of refuse deposit areas, unless otherwise approved through the review and approval of a Modification to the Refuse and Recycling Standards in accordance with RMC 4-2-250. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Manager for Review and approval. 8. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review that reconfigures the outdoor seasonal sales area and the shed display area within the surface parking lot to ensure that the proposal provides for 342 onsite parking spaces are provided on the project site, unless a modification to these standards is approved in accordance with RMC 4-4-080K or 4-4-080F10c. Required project improvements based upon number of parking spaces, such as landscaping and bicycle parking, may be adjusted to reflect any approved reduction in parking spaces. The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Construction Permit. 9. A revised site plan and bicycle parking detail shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager demonstrating that the proposal would comply with the bicycle parking requirements as required in RMC 4-4-080F.11. 10. Any proposed fencing shall be shown on the site plan and a fencing detail be provided at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. All proposed fencing shall comply with the maximum eight foot (8’)- maximum height permitted, unless otherwise approved through a separate variance process. 11. A screening detail shall be provided for any proposed surface or roof mounted utility equipment be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. The screening detail for surface mounted utility equipment shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit review and the screening detail for any roof-mounted utility equipment shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review. 12. Areas proposed for outdoor storage shall be screened through a combination of fencing and landscaping around the perimeter of the storage areas. A fencing and landscape Appeal Enclosures - Pg 27 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 19 screening detail shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Construction Permit review. 13. All onsite wetlands, streams, and associated buffer areas shall be placed within a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE). The NGPE shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building. 14. The shed display shall be relocated outside of the required 100-foot wetland buffer and the 115-foot stream buffer. A revised site plan showing the relocated shed display shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 15. The outdoor retail sales area proposed within the parking lot between the main building entry and S Grady Way, shall be relocated to an alternative location of the project site that does not obstruct any of the building entrance from the public right-of-way (i.e. to the side of the existing building). A revised site plan showing the relocated outdoor sales area shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Manager prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 16. Any proposed service areas shall be located and designed to minimize impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. A revised site plan showing the service area location shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 17. Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors. A screening detail shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 18. The proposed service area screening shall be comprised of a combination of materials proposed around the building entries (i.e. Pediment C2 and Traditional C3), unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 19. Any service areas adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian-oriented space shall be screened with a 3-foot wide landscape planting strip around three (3) sides of the service area. A detailed landscape plan including the 3-foot wide landscape strip would be required at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 20. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan with the civil construction permit application that indicates all pedestrian walkways, the three-striped pedestrian crossing areas proposed over the drive aisle abutting the lumber canopy, main building entrance, and garden center entrance, and the paved apron abutting the chamfered entrance to the Appeal Enclosures - Pg 28 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 20 garden center are delineated by stamped concrete or pavers. The revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 21. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan demonstrating that the sidewalk proposed along the west façade shall comply with the minimum width required of 12 feet (12’) with an 8-foot wide minimum unobstructed walking surface. The reviewed site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 22. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan at the time of Construction Permit Review showing the required paved pedestrian pathways proposed through the parking lot provide a minimum width of five feet (5’). The revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. 23. Landscape planters shall be provided along the west side of the pedestrian walkway, abutting the drive aisle, that extends along the west building façade. The proposed planters should be of sufficient size and scale to accommodate large shrub and tree species to break up the size and scale of the façade, screen any blank walls, and screen the outdoor sales and display area. The location of the proposed planters, plantings proposed within the planters, and a detail of the planters proposed shall be provided with the detailed landscape plan submitted at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 24. Proposed amenity details, including outdoor seating, for the proposed plaza area and adjacent to the main building entrance, shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Site furniture shall be made of durable, vandal- and weather-resistant materials that do not retain rainwater and can be reasonably maintained over an extended period of time. 25. The applicant shall demonstrate that the weather protection proposed comply with the minimum four and one-half feet (4-1/2') minimum width requirement and comprise seventy five percent (75%) of the façade facing S Grady Way. A revised site plan demonstrating compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 26. The site plan shall be revised to provide the required 8,157 sq. ft. of pedestrian oriented space. The required pedestrian-oriented space shall include all of the following: Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier-free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; paved walking surfaces of either Appeal Enclosures - Pg 29 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 21 concrete or approved unit paving; on-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4) foot-candles (average) on the ground; and at least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space, unless otherwise determined to meet the intent of the guidelines as approved by the current planning project manager. Details regarding the pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided for review and approval to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit application. 27. A revised site plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Construction Permit application, that includes the minimum 1,000 sq. ft. public plaza at the intersection of Talbot Rd S and S Grady Way. 28. Plaza details shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit application for review and approval. The detailed plan for the plaza shall include street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and seating. 29. The untreated blank walls facing Talbot Road S shall be treated with a planting bed at least five feet (5’) in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Revised architectural elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 30. The paint banding pattern shown on the west elevation shall be continued along the north, east, as south facades as these facades are also visible to the public. Revised architectural elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Bu ilding Permit. 31. A materials board shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit application. 32. The off-site sign proposed on out lot 1 shall be relocated to be on the Home Depot parcel. A revised site plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. 33. A lighting plan and light fixture details shall be provided to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. 34. The undergrounding of power lines pursuant to RMC 4-6-090 has not yet been addressed in the staff recommended conditions of approval or the staff report. At hearing, the parties have agreed to defer resolution of the issue pending further assessment of the applicability of RMC 4-6-090. Applicant’s legal counsel has also raised the issue of Dolan proportionality, which staff may also have to further assess. At hearing the parties also agreed to subject any disagreement on the underground issue to hearing examiner Appeal Enclosures - Pg 30 of 48 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 Site Plan and Street Modification - 22 appeal. As recommended by staff, if the parties cannot mutually agree on whether power lines should be undergrounded, the Applicant shall put its position in the form of a modification request and the resulting staff decision shall be subject to hearing examiner appeal. 35. Similar to Condition No. 34, the Applicant is also authorized to submit an appealable modification request on the issue of whether screening of the top of roof-top mechanical equipment is required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b)(iii). DATED this 9th day of August, 2022. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the consolidated application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 31 of 48 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER DECISION EXHIBITS Project Name: Home Depot Project Number: LUA21-000452, SA-H, MOD, ECF Date of Hearing July 26, 2022 Staff Contact Jill Ding Senior Planner Project Contact/Applicant Dan Zoldak Lars Andersen & Associates 4694 W Jacquelyn Ave, Fresno, CA 93722 Project Location 901 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 The following exhibits entered into the record include: Exhibits 1-15: Exhibits 16-23: Exhibit 24: Exhibit 25: Exhibit 26: Exhibit 27: Exhibit 28: Exhibit 29: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner Staff PowerPoint COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/ Parking Exhibit Parking Analysis Memo (dated July 14, 2022) Home Depot Letter to Renton Hearing Examiner (dated July 26, 2022) Appeal Enclosures - Pg 32 of 48 From:Dan Zoldak To:"Vanessa Dolbee" Cc:Jill Ding; Jonathan Chavez; Luis Rebelo; Brianne Bannwarth; Nathan Janders; Chip Vincent; Matthew Herrera Subject:RE: Talbot - Home Depot Date:Friday, April 7, 2023 2:55:06 PM Vanessa, I have had several meetings with Home Depot on your email below. I can tell you Home Depot is not happy as we believe it was represented the Metro would be dealing with all the work outside the ROW. With no other option provided to me, we have provided Jonathon with the deferral request as you have advised. Daniel J. Zoldak, PE, PLS, CASp, LEED AP, QSD/P Vice President Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. CASp – LEED Accredited – QSD/QSP 4694 W Jacquelyn Avenue Fresno, CA 93722 (559) 276-2790 Ext. 117 Office (559) 276-0850 Fax (559) 978-7059 Cell www.LarsAndersen.com From: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 9:42 AM To: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Luis Rebelo <LRebelo@larsandersen.com>; Brianne Bannwarth <BBannwarth@Rentonwa.gov>; Nathan Janders <NJanders@Rentonwa.gov>; Chip Vincent <CVincent@Rentonwa.gov>; Matthew Herrera <MHerrera@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: RE: Talbot - Home Depot Dan, Thank you for your patience on a response to your questions bellow. We took the time to pull our team together and make sure we are all on the same page in regard to the frontage improvements and associated deferral requests. In short, King County Metro’s project is not required to install street trees or street lighting along Talbot. Currently King County is showing them on their construction plans but at any time they could determine that they are unwilling to install them. Since a permit has not been issued for any of the outlots that would solidify these improvements, the City is unwilling to release Home Depot from the responsibility for these items. The City is willingAppeal Enclosures - Pg 33 of 48 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. to process two deferrals permits, one for Outlot 1 improvements and one for Outlot 2 improvements. When these outlots have been permitted or sold, we will release the corresponding deferral permit. We all sincerely hope that street trees and lighting will be installed by Metro, but we do not have that guarantee at this time. If you would like to discuss, please feel free to reach out any time. I would also be happy to set up a meeting with our team if you prefer. VANESSA DOLBEE, Planning Director City of Renton | CED | Planning Division 1055 S Grady Way | 6th Floor | Renton, WA 98057 Virtual Permit Center | Online Applications and Inspections (425) 430-7314 | vdolbee@rentonwa.gov From: Dan Zoldak <DZoldak@larsandersen.com> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2023 9:01 AM To: Vanessa Dolbee <VDolbee@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Jonathan Chavez <JChavez@Rentonwa.gov>; Luis Rebelo <LRebelo@larsandersen.com> Subject: Talbot - Home Depot Vanessa, I think I have an email already but cant find it right now on the road. There were prior conversations on Talbot and Home Depot vs. Metro responsibilities. At least my recoloration was Metro was going to do from the ROW out to the street and HD ROW in. The question has come back up with Jonathon team about the construction of this work. Can you confirm my understanding above and let me know if we need a follow up conversation on the issue. Appeal Enclosures - Pg 34 of 48