HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOR Exhibits-Appeal Hearing 10.24.23_04.220809 HEXFInalDecision1
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 7 of 45
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 8 of 45
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 9 of 45
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 10 of 45
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 11 of 45
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 12 of 45
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 13 of 45
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 14 of 45
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 15 of 45
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 16 of 45
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 17 of 45
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 18 of 45
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 19 of 45
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 20 of 45
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 21 of 45
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 22 of 45
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 23 of 45
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 24 of 45
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 25 of 45
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 26 of 45
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 27 of 45
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 28 of 45
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 29 of 45