HomeMy WebLinkAboutEx. 29 QT - HEX_powerpointQuendall Terminals
(LUA09-151)
HEX Public Hearing
Date
Names/TitlesVanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
April 18, 2017
Presentation Overview
Approximate Location
•Project Description –Enhanced
Alternative & Development Agreement
•Background
•Renton Municipal Code Analysis
–Compliance
–Conditions
•Staff Recommendation
Approximate Location
Approximate Location
Applications:
1) Master Site Plan
2) Binding Site Plan
3) Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
4) Development Agreement
Environmental Impact Statement
Completed
−FEIS issued August 2015
−Mitigation Document issued
August 2015
−Consistency Analysis For
Enhanced Alternative issued
March 2017
The application is vested to
regulations from February 10,
2010, ORD 5520 (including the
SMP –amended in 1983)
Site Characteristics
SITE
Isolate
Property
Lake Washington
PanAbode
SiteBarbee Mill
VMAC
King Co.
rail-road
ROW
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
•COR Zone and Urban
Shoreline Environment
•21.24 acre site
•7 lots –4 with mixed
use buildings
•692 multi-family
residential units
•33,190 SF of
retail/Commercial
•9,000 SF of restaurant
•Density 40.95 du/ac
•Parking for 1,352
vehicles
•*Superfund site subject
to EPA regulations
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Pedestrian Trail
Road C Road BRoad A Road E100 ft. shoreline setback
N 42nd Place
Ripley Lane (Seahawks
Way)
Rail road ROW –King. Co.
Access Point
Access Point
Proposal
Enhanced Alternative
Building Design –
* Ground floor Parking or Retail/Restaurant along Road B and Lake Washington
* 3, 4, or 5 stories above for residential units and semi-private plaza space
*Final elevation design will be reviewed at Site Plan review.
**Graphics were prepared for Preferred Alternative
Quendall Terminals
Quendall Terminals
Overview
•Applicant: Extended time frame beyond the 5 years permitted by code
and associated vesting of development regulations
•City/Public: Project Enhancements –designed to provide a public
benefit
Development Agreement
Provisions –Project Timing
•Following 5 years of the initial term a SEPA Transportation Update would be
required.
–New transportation mitigation for the project may be required based on changed
conditions and associated project impacts.
•Vest the development regulations effective on the vesting date, which is
February 10, 2010 for the term of the agreement.
•Extends code authorized land use approval time lines from 5 years to 10 years
from the earlier of:
–(i) the date of issuance of the EPA’s Record of Decision, or
–(ii) The Hearing Examiners Decision and/or subsequent appeal decision dates
•Extension to the 10 years up to 5 additional years, could be authorized by the
City if 51% of the residential and commercial space has been constructed and
received Certificate of Occupancy, following a second SEPA Transportation
Update.
•s
Development Agreement
Enhanced Alternative
Project Elements
Collaborate with the
developer on a public
dock/pier
•Permitting –City
•Funding, construction,
mitigation -developer
1.3 acres of a public park
in the southwest corner
of the site
Project Elements
Additional
retail/restaurant/office space
•Minimum 50 percent of the
building street frontage
•Minimum of 20 feet in depth
Required along:
•Lakeside frontage
•Street B
•Other street frontages as
necessary to meet 50%
Street activation; such as
fountains and artwork will be
provided along street B and
lakeside frontage
Enhanced Alternative
Background
•Former creosote manufacturing
facility that operated from
1917-1969
•Past coal tars and creosote
have contaminated soil,
groundwater, surface water
and lake sediments
•In 2005 DOE transferred the
oversight to the EPA
•The site received a Superfund
designation from EPA
•The EPA is conducting a
remedial investigation and
feasibility study. Which will
lead to a ROD.
Background
•Clean up work is being
conducted under the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. (CERCLA; i.e.
Superfund)
•EPA Contact –Clair Hong,
hong.claire@epa.gov.
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-6 DEIS
Shoreline Restoration Conceptual Design
Soil Cap
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum beyond
100 ft. setback.
Background (baseline assumptions)
Figure 2-7 DEIS
Buffer Width Averaging Wetland D
Wetland Recreation
•This figure shows a
conceptual design
with a 50 ft. buffer
not a 100 ft. buffer,
which was required
by the EPA after
Public Comment on
the DEIS.
•Assumptions are
unchanged in the
Addendum for the
Preferred Alternative
Buffer Averaging
Trail with
view points
Background (EIS Process)
Determination of Significance (DS) issued on February 19, 2010 –EIS Process began:
Date EIS Action, see Exhibits 2, 3, 15, and 21.
2/19/10 –
4/30/10 EIS Public Scoping Period, 70 days (extended)
4/27/10 Public Scoping Meeting
12/10/2010 DEIS Issuance
12/10/10 –
2/09/11 DEIS Public Comment Period, 60 days (extended)
1/04/11 DEIS Public Hearing
10/19/12 EIS Addendum Issuance
10/19/12 –
11/19/12 EIS Addendum Public Comment Period
8/31/15 FEIS Issuance
8/31/15 –
9/24/15 EIS Public Appeal Period
9/24/15 Appeal submitted to EIS, Appellant South End Gives Back
2/18/16 Receipt of Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Appellant and Applicant
2/22/16 Joint Stipulation & Proposed Order Dismissing Appeal signed by the Hearing Examiner. Appeal
Dismissed.
3/20/17 Consistency Analysis Issuance for Enhanced Alternative and Development Agreement
Renton Municipal Code Analysis
•Comprehensive Plan Compliance
•Zoning Compliance
•Design District Review
•Critical Areas
•Master Site Plan Review
•Binding Site Plan
•Availability of Public Services
•Shoreline Regulations
Staff Analysis/Conditions
64 Conditions of Approval Recommend by Staff
Primary:
•Compliance with the Mitigation Document
•Phasing/Site Plan Review
•Design Standards Compliance
•Access/Roadways (vehicular and pedestrian)
•Binding Site Plan (recording)
Secondary:
•Utilities
•Code/Landscaping
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 20 and 21:
Setbacks from parent parcel edges shall be as follows:
a.100 ft. from the OHWM of Lake Washington
b.40 feet from the south (adjacent to Barbee Mill)
c.38 feet from the north (adjacent to Seahawks Training Facility)
View Corridors –
a.74 ft. width for Road B
b.80 ft. width for semi-private plaza space.
Site Plan
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 6
and 27:
Critical Areas
Regulations
Baseline Assumptions,
assumed all recreated
wetland and their
associated buffers
would fit within
Binding Site Plan lots 1
and 6.
Baseline
Assumptions
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 27:
Critical Areas Regulations
1)The outcome of the ROD and NRD Settlement details
are not known at this time.
2)This conditions is need so impacts of the proposed
development will comply with the City’s critical areas
regulations following the ROD and NRD Settlement.
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Requires a fire lane and utility maintenance access road along
Lake Washington
Staff Analysis/Conditions
Condition 41:
Satisfies the following code requirements:
1.Fire Access is required along the Lake
a.Required to be 20 ft. in width.
b.Shall be constructed to support the weight of a fire apparatus.
c.Critical Areas regulations may not permit the trail to be built to meet
fire access standards. Maximum width permitted per code is 12 feet.
(RMC4-3-050C7.a.)
2.Looped waterline required
1.Located along the west side of the 2 lake front buildings.
2.15 feet minimum width needed for maintenance access.
3.Maintenance access shall be a paved surface.
4.Not permitted within wetlands, wetland buffers, or shoreline buffer.
Staff recommends approval of the Master Site Plan, Binding Site Plan, and Shoreline
Substantial Permit for the Enhanced Alterative described in Exhibit 19, subject to all the
conditions of approval of the April 2016 staff report and any new conditions or modified
conditions.
Because the Enhanced Alternative relies upon City Council approval of the Development
Agreement, Exhibit 20, staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner add a condition that
if the Development Agreement is not approved by City Council, the Hearing Examiner
will reopen the record and the public hearing for the purpose of reconsidering the
decision utilizing the Preferred Alterative analyzed in the original April 2016 staff report
to the Hearing Examiner.
Recommendation