Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReport 1 - 1 of 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ib 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 The Honorable Brian Gain IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH, Petitioner, PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.; BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON, NO. 10-2-31728-7 KNT OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Renton recently approved a proposal by intervenor Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to expand its existing Wal-Mart Discount Store into a Superstore despite that the proposal is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure. The structure, as it stands, violates the City's maximum frontage setback requirement of 15 feet. Wal-Mart proposed to expand that illegal structure with no intention of bringing it into conformance with the Code. That is forbidden by RMC 4-10-050A. The City also erred when it approved the Wal-Mart expansion proposal because the design of the Superstore violates the City's design regulations. The Code contains urban design Sricklin & Newman, L.LP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 9ttome', aiLaw 1001 Fcuith At',Law Suite 3303 GROWTH- 1Seattle NA 98154 Tel. X6) 264$600 Fax. (206) 2649300 I .regulations that set forth the standard for the design of the Wal-Mart proposal. The Hearing 2 Examiner's own decision reveals that the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at least 20 minimum standards in the design regulations, yet he approved the project nonetheless. The City 4 Council adopted that approval, apparently believing that adherence to the design regulations is S 6 optional. To the contrary, those provisions are mandatory and the Wal-Mart proposal should 7 have been denied. g Rather than require that Wal-Mart conform to the Code requirements, the Examiner 9 opined that "it might be nice" if Wal-Mart would comply with the current Code and expressed a 10 hope that the "next remodel" would be better. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision 11 at 18 (1 16) (hereinafter referred to as "Examiner Decision"). RNHG requests that this Court 12 reverse the City of Renton's approval of the Wal-Mart expansion proposal and issue an order 13 14 requiring that the proposal be denied. 16 IL STATEMENT OF ISSUES 16 A. Whether the City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should 17 be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non-conforming structure 18 per RMC 4-10-050A. 19 B. Whether the Hearing Examiner decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion 20 21 proposal should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District 22 D in RNIC 4-3-100. 23 TTI. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 24 A. The Wal-Mart Expansion Proposal 26 On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pacland filed an application on February 8, 2010 for 26 Site Plan review of a proposal to expand and. convert the existing Wal-Mart Discount Store Srickliu & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Atth A az Law 1001 Fourth Avenue, Svite 3303 GROWTH- 2 Scattle �'A 93154 TeL (_WO) 364-MW Fa - (2Gj 264-9:00 1 located at 743 Rainier Avenue South in Renton into a Superstore. Land Use Permit Master 2 Application (Feb. 8, 2010). The project site is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the 3 Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations within Urban Design 4 District "D." 5 6 The existing Wal-Mart store was built approximately fifteen years ago. Initial Report of 7 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation (Nov. 30, 2009) at 3; Transcript of proceedings (Apr_ 27, 8 2010) at 18, line 5. Needless to say, the City of Renton's regulations have changed since the 9 original store was built. For example, the City adopted a maximum frontage setback requirement 10 of 15 feet for the site after the Wal-Mart was built. Ordinance 5437 (2008) (amending RMC 4-2- 11 120A). In addition, the City adopted new design regulations. Ordinance 5286 (2007). While the 12 existing Wal-Mart was presumably consistent with the City of Renton Code when it was 13 14 onginally built, today it is no longer consistent with the Code. It is, therefore, a "non - 15 conforming" structure. 16 The existing Wal-Mart contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 17 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. Dept. of Community and Economic Development, 18 Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr. 27, 2010). The proposal for the new expanded 19 ` Superstore proposes to add 16,000 square feet to the retail space and reduce the Garden Center by 20 4,000 square feet. Id. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail 21 22 building, 745 surface parking stalls, and a 4,701 square foot Garden Center. Id. Thus, Wal-Mart 23 proposes to expand its non -conforming structure. 24 B. The Citv's Review of the Proposal 25 Asmentioned above, Pacland submitted its application for Wal-Mart site plan review on 26 February 25, 2010. Following review by City staff and by the City of Renton's Environmental Bcicklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Attorneys at Law I061 Fourth Avenue, Suite.3303 GRO�hj'I'I I- 3 Smtde VIA 98154 Tei. (206) 2648600 Fa (206) 2649300 1 Review Committee, the Department of Community and Economic Development issued a 2 preliminary report to the Hearing Examiner on April 27, 2010. See Preliminary Report. 3 A public hearing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, April 4 27, 2010. Examiner Decision at 1. During the hearing, the Hearing Examiner described the 5 6 proposal as a "sea of asphalt" and when Wal -Mart's attorney attempted a different 7 characterization, the Hearing Examiner responded "it's bard to not call a sea of asphalt, a sea of g asphalt, frankly. There is a lot of asphalt out there." Transcript of Proceedings (Apr. 27, 2010) at 9 18, lines 22-23. 10 After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Examiner issued a decision 11 approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan on May 13, 2010. See Examiner Decision. In his 12 decision, the Examiner acknowledged that the project was inconsistent with provisions in the 13 14 Renton Code, but approved it nonetheless. Examiner Decision at 16 (13), 18 (� 16). He stated 15 that "while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer Code provisions," the proposed 16 expansion was modest and enhances the existing building's appearance. Id at 18 (¶ 16). In his 17 decision, he stated "maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce 18 the sea of asphalt." Id. 19 Renton. Neighbors for Healthy Growth (RNHG) became aware of the project on or about 20 21 May 17, 2010. The group filed a request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 with the Hearing 22 Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several ,grounds. See Letter from 23 Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010. The Examiner responded to that 24 request on June 10, 2010 indicating that he would not alter the original decision and that he was 25 denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia 26 Newman dated July 10, 2010. Brickhn & Newman, IJ•p OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHS ORS FOR HEALTHY u"zh A°' u , Su 10Qt Faucch Avenue, Suire 1303 GROWTH- 4 Seatde WA 98154 TeL P6j 264-8600 Fac (206) 2649300 I RNHG appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council on May 27, 2010, 2 Notice of Appeal (May. 27, 2010). The Planning and Development Committee of the Renton City Council held a brief hearing for oral argument on appeal. With little discussion on the matter, the 4 Planning and Development Committee recommended that the full City Council affirm the 5 decision of the Hearing Examiner. Planning and Development Committee Committee Report 6 7 (Aug. 16, 2010). The Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and 8 Development Committee affirming, the decision of the Hearing Examiner at a regular Council 9 meeting on August 16, 2010. Letter from Jason Seth to. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth 10 (Aug. 17, 2010). RNHG filed this LUPA appeal shortly thereafter. I1 1V. ARGUMENT 12 A. Standard of Review 1� 14 The Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), RCW 36.700.130, sets forth the standard of review 15 that this Court must apply in its review of the Renton City Council's decision to approve the Wal - 16 Mart expansion site plan proposal. Review is appellate review on the administrative record 17 created before the Hearing Examiner. HJS Dev. Inc. v. Pierce County ex rel. Dept. of Planning 18 and Land Services, 148 Wn.2d 451, 467, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003). 19 The City Council's decision must be reversed if 20 (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged 21 in unlawful procedure or failed to follow prescribed process, unless 22 the error was harmless; 23 (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of 24 a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; 25 (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is 26 substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the Court;. $rickfin & Newmm, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTCN NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY1007 Pouith ALAvenue, Law veuu 03 e, Suite 33 GRO YY�I7 11 5 Sa tde WA 98154 Td. (206) X48600 Fa (206) 2649300 1 (d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of 2 the law to the facts; ... RCW 36.70C.130(l). 4 When the Court is reviewing a question of law, the standard is de novo review. RCW 5 6 36.70C.130(1)(b). For example, the City Council's interpretation of RMC 4-10-050, or other 7 code provisions, being a question of law, would be reviewed under the de nova standard. 8 Milestone Homes, Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. App. 118, 126,186 P.3d 357 (2008). 9 When the Court is reviewing an application of facts to the law, the "clearly erroneous" 10 standard applies. RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston County, 131 Wn. 11 App. 756, 768, 129 P.3d 300 (2006). Even if some evidence supports the City's decision, a 12 decision is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm 13 14 conviction that a mistake has been committed. Norway Hill Preservation and Protection 15 Association v, King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976). The "clearly 16 erroneous" standard allows the Court broader discretion than the often used "arbitrary and 17 capricious" standard. Id. Review under the "clearly erroneous' standard also requires the Court 18 to consider the public policy of the laws that authorize the decision. Thus, consideration of 19 public policy is part of the review. 20 21 Where the Court considers the credibility of findings of fact only, the standard of review 22 is "substantial evidence." RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c); Thornton Creek Legal Defense Fund v, City 23 of Seattle, 113 Wn. App. 34, 61, 52 P.3d 522 (2002). "Substantial evidence" is a sufficient 24 quantity of evidence to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or correctness of the 25 determination of fact. Id. ?6 Brieldin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 10p] FAttomcys at Lam purth Aveave, Sui.e 3303 GROWTH- 6 Scattle WA 98154 Td. (206) 264.8600 Fax. (206) 264-9370 1 B. The Wal-Mart Pxoposal is an Illegal Expansion of a Non -Conforming Structure 2 The City of Renton's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed 3 because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non -conforming structure 4 under RMC 4-10-050 as is explained below. 5 1. Non-conformingstructures may not be ex anded unless the are made 6 conforming 7 A '`non -conforming structure" is "a lawful structure that does not comply with the current development standards (yard setbacks, lot size, lot coverage, height, etc.) for its zone, but which 9 10 complied with applicable regulations at the time it was established. RMC 4-11-112 (Definition 11 N) A legally established building or structure may remain if it does not conform with the 12 provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, but only if certain conditions are met, including the 13 following: 14 3. Alterations: A legal nonconforming structure shall not be 15 altered beyond the limitations specified below: 16 a, Structures With Rebuild Approval Permits: Alteration work exceeding an aggregate cost of one Hundred 17 percent (100%) of the value of the building or structure 18 shall be allowed if: 19 (1) the building or structure is made conforming by the alterations; or 20 (2) the alterations were imposed as a condition of 21 granting a rebuild approval permit; or 22 (3) alterations are necessary to restore to a safe 23 condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in 24 or increase any non --conforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of granting a rebuild 25 approval permit, pursuant to RMC 4-9-120. 26 Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTH1001 Fourth Att°meys�Lu � 7 °urh Avenue, Sintt 3.103 GRO YY'M- 7 SemdeWA98154 Td. (206) 264-9600 Fes. (206) 264-9300 1 b.. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the alterations shall not exceed an .aggregate cost of fifty 2 percent (50%) of the value of the building or structure, based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal, unless ' the amount over fifty percent (50%) is used to make the 4 building or structure more confonning, or is used to restore it to a safe condition any portion -of a building or structure 5 declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase any nonconforming condition. 6 7 4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged. unless the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions g of a rebuild approval permit issued for it. 9 RMC 4-10-050(A). This provision provides conditions for two different types of actions: the 10 "alteration" of a structure and the "enlargement" of a structure. The provision concerning 11 "enlargement" is the relevant provision in this case because Wal-Mart is enlarging its existing 12 structure. Therefore, RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) applies here. That provision forbids enlarging a non- 13 14 confarmiri , structure unless the enlargement is conforming or unless it is consistent with 15 conditions of a rebuild approval permit. Here, Wal-Mart did not have a rebuild approval permit 16 and, therefore, the proposal for enlargement must bring the structure into conformance with the 17 Code. 18 2. The existing Wal-Mart is a non-conforming structure 19 The existing Wal-Mart is a non-conforming structure under the Renton City Code. The 20 21 Wal-Mart site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) on the City of 22 Renton zoning map.' The CA zoning designation requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 23 feet. RMC 4-2-120A. 24 25 i Because only a small portion of the site is Medium Industrial (IM), the staff decided to review the 26 project only under the Commercial Arterial (CA) requirements. RNHG does not necessarily agree with this approach, but, for practical purposes, it did not ultimately affect the project. Bricklin & Newman, LLP Aeys u rrOPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY pool rorrh Avernu� s� 4 3303 GROWTH- O Se rde TC+A 98134 Tel. (2N 3644000 Fig. (206) 264-9300 I As it stands, there is an enormous parking lot between Hardy Avenue SWaainier Avenue 2 S. and the entrance to the Wal-Mart. See Wal-Mart Short Plat Map (Nov. 2, 2009). The front 3 street for the Wal-Mart is Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. ISR 1.67. There is far more 4 than 500 feet between the from street and the building. Therefore, the Wal-Mart is in violation of 5 the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The Wal-Mart is also in violation of the City's 7 design regulations as is explained in more detail in Section C. 8 3. The proposed Wal-Mart expansion is an illegal enlargement of a non- conforming structure 9 10 RMC 4-10-050(A)(4), the provision quoted above does not allow Wal-Mart to expand its 11 non -conforming structure as proposed. The provision above makes it clear that enlargements are 12 not allowed unless they make the structure conforming or unless it is consistent with a rebuilt 13 approval permit. Wal-Mart is not seeking, nor has it received, a rebuild approval permit. 14 Therefore, the proposal must bring the structure into conformance with the Code. 15 The proposal does not do that. The proposed Wal-Mart structure, after expansion, would 16 be setback from the front property line approximately 555 feet at the closest point, from the 17 18 garden center to Hardy Avenue SW. Examiner Decision at 6 (J'20). Therefore, the proposed 19 structure does not comply with the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. Id. In addition, as 20 explained in Section C of this brief, the proposal violates numerous design regulations in the 21 Code. The enlargement is, therefore, non -conforming. 22 At the beginning of the hearing, the Examiner questioned the expansion of this non - 23 conforming use. See Examiner Decision at 2. He stated: 24 HEARING .EXAMINER: May — I don't know if this is the 25 appropriate time — what triggers conforming or non -conforming — 26 there are a number of areas in the project where you've indicated thins are non -conforming ... can a non -conforming — legal non- C, $ricldin &Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Aeome � at . 1ao1 �o„� Avenue,. Site 3303 , GROWTH- 9 Se rtle WA 98154 TeL (206) 2648600 Fac P6) 264-9300 I conforn3ing use be expanded under our Code? And is there some 2 trigger factor? 3 TRvM4ONS: As long as it's. not more than a 50 percent expansion. In terms of the actual structure, we have a 140,000 square foot 4 structure existing. The applicant is only proposing a 16,000 square foot addition. 5 6 Transcript of Proceedings (Apr. 27, 2010) at 5, lines 9-1 S. 7 From reading this exchange, it is evident that the City staff interpreted RMC 4-10-050(A) g incorrectly. The City staff was referring to the Code requirements for "alterations" as if those 9 were the conditions for "expansion." But the conditions regarding the cost of 50 percent of the 10 value of the building or structure do not apply to expansion, only alterations. Unfortunately, the 11 Hearing Examiner and the City Council accepted that incorrect interpretation of the City Code. 12 The Examiner's Decision,_ which was affirmed by the Council, states: 13 14 The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, 15 the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and 16 parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum 17 front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the tradeoff is 18 allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the 19 excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the 20 Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a 21 modest remodel. 22 Examiner's Decision at 16 (1 3). There is no reference to or acknowledgment of RMC 4-10-050 23 by the Examiner in his conclusion. 24 25 Because this involves interpretation of the Code, review of this issue by this Court is 26 under de novo review pursuant to RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b). RN`HG requests that the Court reverse Brickli . & Newman, LLP Attorneys at Lan, OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY !W1 Fourth Acnerue, saite 3303 GROWTH- 10 Seattle WA 98154 Tel. P)O) 264-860D Fac 0- 2649300 I 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 the decision of the City on the grounds that it erred in its interpretation of the Code and, therefore, erred in approving this illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure. 4. The, City's desim regulations do not su ersede Code provisions that Prohibit the illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure Seeing that the Examiner had interpreted the Code improperly, RNHG requested reconsideration and pointed out that the proposal constituted an illegal expansion of a non- conforming use. In response to Renton Neighbors' argument in its request for reconsideration and appeal, the Hearing Examiner and Wal-Mart made the remarkable argument that RMC 4-10- 050(A)(4) does not apply to the Vital -Mart project because the City's design regulations somehow supersede provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, including the non -conforming provisions. That is an incredible statement that. has no support whatsoever in the Code. It is a tortured reading of RMC 4-3-100. The section referred to by the Examiner (RMC 4-3-100) says, in so many words, that all development in the commercial arterial (CA) zone, including Big Box, is required to comply with the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(2) and (4). That means that a proposal to enlarge a non -conforming structure must comply with the design regulations. Nowhere in the design regulations does it say that the design regulations supersede RMC 4-10-050. Design regulations are meant to be an "overlay" to other regulations that set forth standards for design. The Urban I Design Regulations exist in addition to and on top of other regulations in the Code. Not even the staff report adopts this incredible idea that somehow projects are exempt from the non- conforming provisions by the Urban Design Regulations. OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH- 11 Brickfin & Newman, LLP Ana-ep at Law 1001 Fourth Avenue, suite 3303 senile WA 98154 Tel. (Md) 2648600 Fsm (2pG) 26449300 I C. The Wal-Mart Proposal Violates the City's Design Regulations 2 Stepping away from the issue of non-conformance, the second issue presented to this 3 Court is whether the Hearing Examiner decision to approve the Wal-Mart expansion proposal 4 should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District D in 5 RMC 4-3-100. 6 7 1. The City of Renton designregulations envision a vibrant. walkable, pedestrian friendly commercial area 8 The Wal-Mart expansion is subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to 9 10 District "D" in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, 11 the City of Renton has set forth a regulatory vision for the area. The requirements were adopted 12 with an eye towards replacing the current look of commercial areas in District "D" with more 13 vibrant, walkable, pedestrian -friendly retail areas. That vision echoes the goal and intent of the 14 CA zoning. See RMC 4-2-020(L), The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from "strip 15 commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning 16 17, and pedestrian orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, 18 amenities and boulevard treatment with greater densities. RMC 4-2-010(L). 19 The design regulations apply to all development in the CA zone. RMC 4-3-100(B)(5). 20 Big box retail in the Commercial Arterial zone is required to comply with the design regulations 21 applicable for District D. RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). 22 The Urban Design Regulations were established in accordance with and to implement 23 policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton 24 25 Comprehensive Plan. RMC 4-3-100(A)(I). The purpose of the provision is to establish two 26 categories of regulations: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met and (b) "guidelines" that, BrickUn & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY A�megS" 1LA] Fouxth Aveauc, Suite 3303 GRO7 V`TH- 12 Sntdc WA 99154 Td. qw) 2648600 Fax. (7.06) 2649300 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 while not mandatory, are considered by the Development Services Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. RMC 4-3-1 OO(A)(8). The intent and goals of these requirements are expressed in each section. Some of the relevant sections state: (Site design and building locations) intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. (Building location and orientation) Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses, establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses in the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. (Building entries) Intent: To mare building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. (Pedestrian environment) Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from the streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi- modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. (Pedestrian amenities) Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY AAve u , 100i Fourtrth vtS nuq Suite 3.103 GROWTH- 13 Seattle AIA 98154 TeL (106) 264-8600 F= (206) 264-9300 1 that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. 2 3 (Building architectural design) Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a 4 human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise 5 retail architecture. 6 (Parking and vehicular access) Intent: To maintain active 7 pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. 8 RJMC 4-3-100. These are just a few samples of the intent statements throughout the design 9 10 requirements. They provide a general feeling of the vision that Renton has for this area. The I I intent statements are followed by rainirnum standards or guidelines to carry out the vision. 12 The goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 13 4-3-100. Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian 14 activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that 15 pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the 16 17 pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact df parking lots is to be 18 mM1=ed and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in 19 back of buildings. Id. 20 2. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's desigg regWations 21 The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet the City's vision nor does it meet the specific 22 regulatory requirements that were enacted to carry out this vision. The proposal is for a typical 23 Wal-Mart Big Box expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Superstore with franchise retail 24 architecture and a "sea of asphalt" located between the building and the front property line. Wal - 25 26 Mart has expanded a "pedestrian" path in the parking lot as an afterthought. But it is not a $rickhn & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY nroh Aveeys u �" GROWTH- laol Forrct!•, �s�u� Suirc 3303 14 Scnrle �4A 98154 'Tel. (206) 264-$600 Fac CM06) 2649300 I pedestrian -oriented design by any measure. It is a traffic -oriented design. The proposal is for 2 exactly the opposite of what the City requires in its regulations. Approval of the proposal 3 undermines the City's attempt to change the area. 4 The record could not be more clear — the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at least 20 5 6 minimum standards in the design regulations. See Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr. 27, 7 2010). In the Preliminary Report to the Examiner, the staff incorporated a table in its review of g compliance with District D Design Guidelines. Id. Throughout the table, the staff reported 9 repeatedly that the project is "not compliant" with various minimum standards listed. The 10 Examiner's Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff s analysis of the proposal's 11 compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Examiner Decision at 7-16 (128). The table 12 shows that the Wal-Mart proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the 13 14 Design Regulations. 15 For example, the minimum standard for parking and vehicular access is that "no surface 16 parking shall be located between the building and the front property line or the building and side 17 property line on the street side of a corner lot." Exanvner Decision at 9. The intent of that 18 standard is to "maintain. active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots 19 primarily in back of buildings." The Examiner's table concludes that the proposal is "not 20 21 compliant'' with this minimum standard. 22 Another minimum standard requires that Wal-Mart "plant at least one tree for every six 23 parking spaces." Examiner Decision at 9. The proposal is "not compliant." Id. The intent of 24 that requirement is that landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the 25 area, provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures, and other 26 benefits. Bricklin & Newmau, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1007 FDunh Aver _ suite 5303 GROWTH- 15 Seattle Nd 99154 TeL (206} 2648600 Fal. (206) 2549x00 1 There are 18 other minimum standards where the proposal is reported as being "not 2 compliant" in the Hearing Examiner's Decision. See Examiner's Decision at 8-16. Overall, the 3 proposal should have been denied because of these failures to meet the mandatory minimum 4 standard design requirements. 5 V. CONCLUSION 6 7 In conclusion, RNHG requests that the Court reverse the City of Renton's Decision on the 8 Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval for the reasons stated above and order that the Wal-Mart 9 proposal be denied. 10 Dated this 0 of January, 2011. 13 Respectfully submitted, 12 BRICKLLN & NEWM,AN, LLP 1� 14 15 By. Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928 16 ,Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth 17 18 IZNEIGIS�perio�Openist� Brief 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BrickHn & Newman, LLP OPEIL�TG BRIEF Off' RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Attomry Av az lam 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 GROWTH -16 Searde WA 99154 TeL {206) 254.8600 Fa M6) 264-9300 Y OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Nrmutes OWNER. Peter Bonnell Bonuell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, #504 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT{Al'PLICANT: PROJECT NAME: Jeff Chambers PACLAND- 1505 Wmdake Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H May 13, 2010 LOCATION: 743 R.amier Ave 5 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the Wdstitng Walma tTetaU facility, which would include 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square fed in the Card= Center and an al#oximate 16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation, Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April. 20, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information an file with tb.e application, fiald ehec mg, tha property and surroundng area, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows; it T l:e follow,irg minutes are a summanp of rhe April 27, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The bearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9-00 z.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties vrishing io testify were affirmed by the Exa i=, The fallowing erhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1_ Project file containing the original application, reports, staff comments and other dacumeatation T)ert ri mt to this request - Exhibit Na. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood DetaS] Map AiTACMVIENT A • Drofiak ApaT-=ents Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112; SA -1-1 May 13, 2010 Page 2 11 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timruons Associate Planner, Com muriity and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7* Street and S Grady Way_ The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Desimation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existizng Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is farther proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4.000 square fleet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non-mnformin g, parldrig is an example of non-conformin- as well as other aspects &the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existimg, the applicant is proposing only 127 now parking stalls, The applicant is proposing improvements to existing iandscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The. FrIvironmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Sig'rnifrcance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with aIl policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted arithin this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front vard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback There are no other setbacks nee fired in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maxim= front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recentl- approved for the site which would aUow 'Waltnart to site structure on its own building pad. The shQrt.plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4 The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along. the eastern fagade to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetaiion an site should be retained as much as possible. The existirn_ parldnR lavout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could nor be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Drafiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA•-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 3 frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the pexinieter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7's Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parldng stalls and that is being done in the parking area-, 'Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 r. parking stalls are proposed, winch requites 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meetitzg the requirements. Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,540 square feet to 30 cultic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff'•has received several lettm as well as a petition that demonstrate the commuzaity support for this e xpazimon. property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project, Vehiculax circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the rem facffity, 'there was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the .applieant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well w enhance it wif pedestx= scale lighting. An additional pedekwin connection ]las bean proposed from the northern portion of the stricture to.SW 7' Street. The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the msting lights an site and =a-aun&ng properties. A lighting Plan needs to be provided showing both existing and new ijgbting plans chat conform with spillover regarnemeats of the Code. A drainage report has-been submitted stabng.that •the proposed project improvements generate less t1m .5 cubic feet per seeond;1herefore, the project is -exempt from the flow control •rmFir=ents. Water quality treatment has been provided in -the form of a new bio-swale ju& north of the expanded parking lot area. The project is ionated within Design District D, which includes mimzimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they matt the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse anal recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply vritb the minimurra standards for pariang and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing. and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use Of landscaping. The proposal does aompiy with all minimain standards within, the pedestrian enviromnaent Most of the Tninirnum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing stricture, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elem cuts could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevatian of the fa.gade. A building materials and colors board must be. provided to staff iia order to in= that quality materials have been provided Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: I.UA-09-112, SA --H May 13, 201 0 Page 4 Jack McCuIlQ_uMcCullough 8f Hill, 701 5"' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and -decided that they could'not snake it work The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site. There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have ben expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking, requirements of Che code do create a range within whicb the proiect must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this' site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Teff Chambers PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste, 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward, in relation to landscaping, during the discussions void; staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widemed out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-.1.2 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping_ Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7a', which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been. working very ef6cieutly in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encotrages parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around I G -foot candles. The current parking lot meets that uniformity. 'V�rhen 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigQcr safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, blare would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located. Usunobun Osaaie, Larry D, Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste, 222, Dalias, TX 75202'statcd that they would be We to make the suggested changes tri the facade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation, The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy vtb this expansion. Jack McCullough stated that they were going, to take an emstinvg facilin, that is non -conforming in sorer. respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. The;, are consistently working with staff to make the project better, Kavren Kittri ck Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Shon Plat- All the issues reCardinr, storm drains etc have been worked out to the City'r, satisfaction. It is still subiect to final reviev, and permitting'. 0 ! Drofiak Apart -meats Site Plan Approval File NO.- LUA=09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were subject to the foot candies being at a level that was Gammon throughout the City at .that time. It mostly a matter of a r -ice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is wasnot going to wander off the property. 'There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage &wale on the west, that ligbting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one. The Examiner called for 5xtlier testimony regarding this piglect- Theae was no One else wishing to spear, and no further comments from sta$ Tfze heating closed at 16:56 am - FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS &'RECKNDLTION Laving reviewed the record m this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following; FINDINGS: 1. ne applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2, The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Enviromnenta3 Policy Act (SEPA) dOcumentatian and other pertinent ruatedale was entered into the reowd-as Exhibit #l. 3. The Errviroutnental P-0mew Caramittee (ERC), the City`s responsible official issued a Deteem;iination of Non -Significance - lvfitigated (DAIS -M). 4. The subj act proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the mattes. 5. There was no opposifion from the public regarding the sub}ectproposal. 6. The subject sine is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy Md e's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or panic ng areas to the north, smith and east that Lucludes the Columbia Bank and 3iairay Mac's. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan desigaates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site -is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and lM (Medium Industrial). Tire vast maj ority of the subj ect site is zoned for commercial uses with the -most westerly portion of the site limited to IM uses. The subject site -is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959- 10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing. and future W almart areas from surravnding properties. 'That short plat has been approved but not recorded. IL The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 ages. 12. The subject site is essentially level. 0 0 DT-ofApartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA.-09-1 12, SA -H May 13, 2010 page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 siPificant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subj eat site Rill be unchanged 15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade new its northeast corner and two smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls. 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There will be two entrances into the store from the east The two entrances will generally divide access to the general rnerchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooves that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and trash cans. The rooflihe will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. 17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden aru,to contain more retail space, The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the nortb will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit These units have been demonstrated to 'handle wastefrecychng materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal. 19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along eastern roofline as weIl as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to sabmit materials boards to verify the qualit�r and appearance features of the exterior treatments. ?G. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to rhe street and reduce the visual impact of parking along tboroughfams..The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback cif approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex if does not trigger a need to conform to the newer_ current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 1 0 ieeL 65 feel and 15 feet. Pard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meetim-, code requirements. The proposed maximum height of']. 2 fee; 4 inches meets the heighl limit of the CA ?one's 50 feet. Drofsak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LVA -09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area whm-e Billy McHale' s was located- Code permits a range of_parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls: The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need far the larger complMent of parking. 22. Code requires 26,07$ square fact of landscaping for the 745 -stall parking lois. The applicant proposes h 65,690 gquare feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in panting aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate mmmy of the lsayes, mature trees located in the parting areas. perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These landscape. areas will be enlarged althou h they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. r. 23. The development -will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a'mitigatiott fee to help offset the impacts .of .those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are its, a bank, tin store, retail pad and car dealership. Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue.to be compatible with these various uses_ 25. 5tormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio -Soule to treat surface parking lot nimof£ The proposal does comply with the impervious sarface rests of Cotte. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast7najority-of-the-subject site is gov=ed by tbe-CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies. Stag' determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designafions, Commercial Corridor, should be applied.. 27. The existing parking areas are currently sewed by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall. Code =n-eotdy restricts ligliting standards to not more than 25 feet in height The applicant has pvposed matching the existing pole heist. The applicant noted that the taller tights provide better overall lighting- Any change to light standards should be clone bycode ameudment. There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards, Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. Whale the expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex.. 28- The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines: a) Review of Gornpiiance to District 't1' Design Guidelines The site is located within Design'District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are appiicabie_ As demonstrated in the table below the proposal C1 Drofialc Apamneats Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1.12, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 9 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. AND BUILDING LOCATION; o ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other bulidings so that the Vision of the Menton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility fromights•-of-way; pESIGN and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. esign and Street Pattern: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts organized for of iciency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and ies of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to N/A public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A prornotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest); (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function, (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian-Driented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. aufiding Location and Orientation: Intent; To ensure v'ssibliity of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structure so that natural light and solar access are. available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buhdings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near,the street. +� Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with dear connections to the sidewalk. ✓ Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: intent: 3o make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries furtherthe pedestrian nature of the frontin sidewalk and the urban character of the district Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing ✓ a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standards Multiple buildings on the same site shall prav'ide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. aper-Minirnurn Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or ar 5pace such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protectior: . at #east 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property eaee:, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development; a 0 Droaak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 9. intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value or Kenton's long-established, existing. nei hborhaads are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful" siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve .a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms -of d building height bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. building proportions, including step -Backs on upper levels; r^ Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof Eines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development s. Service Dement location and Design: intend To reduce the -potential negative impacts of service elements (Le., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibil_q areas. Minimum Standard. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the irn a on the pedestrian environment and adiacent uses. Service elements shall _be_concentrated . nd located where the are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use see -a lllugMtlon. RMCA-3-100E7e . Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-1)90, Refuse and Recydables Standards, and RMC 4-4-D95, Screening and Storage HeightlLocation Limitations. Molt Compliant 5 Comment Elevations for the refuse onrr recyde enclosure ~rete not provided wkh the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the upplicurit submit elevationsfor the refuse and reable endosure. NFInimurn 5tandare din and ul .areas shall be enclosed on all sides including the roof and screened collection ti i�at Carnpliant around their erimeter b a wall r fence and have self-closin dents. Comment.- See comments above, _gff Minimum Standard The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. . Not Compliant St Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian- +� oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such fan€4. E. Gateways: Hot Appiicubfe R. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic vaiumes and other.impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades,, minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. L=2tien of Parking: Intent To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings, Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front Not Compliant property line or the building and side property line an the street side of a corner lot. St Comment.' The bulk of the parking is existing onto` iocated in between the retail store and 0 IDrofzak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LliA-09-112, SA -2 May 13, 2010 Page 10 - 0 Rainier Ave 5/5R 167, The applicant is proposing to add o total of 127 odditionaf parlaing stalls of which most would be vacated to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking 'iat. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing o substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Specificalty perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave 5/513 167 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and 5W 7t' St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street .2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent 7o ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever passible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot fighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. staff comment: A lighting plop was not submitted as part of the application materials, Not Compliant properties. staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site fighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. yfinimum Standard. Ail surFace aarkine lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact 3. Structured Parking Garages: Nat C. PEDEMMAN ENVIRONMENT: intent. 7o enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Cerner and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in orderto reduce other vehicular traffic, 1_ P-athways through Parking tats: in:ireint: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking iots. Minimum Standard; Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. Z. Pedestrian Cireuiation: Intent: To create a network of linkages far pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the Dedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation systern that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties. I/ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel, .f Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the faeades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically, N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retaii buildings 200 or more feet in width Imeasured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 -feet in width. The walkway shall include an 9 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street 0 Drofiak Apart3nents Site Plan Approval File No.; LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 201 G Page 11 trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-34DO.G4d). •� .(b) To increase business.vislbility and accessibility, breaks inthe tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. ✓ .(c) For ail other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. +� Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway orsight lines to buiiding entries, Minitnum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the ,--anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development, 3. pedestrian Amenities: intent To create attractive spaces that unifythe building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function fora variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian m erhead•weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees,.canopies, or building overhangs. These eiernents shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide alongat least 75 perrent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground -elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Minimunrr Standard: Site furniture provided In public spaces 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. w/ Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian across to public spaces or bulidng entrances. O. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE,: Intent To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define iogi®] areas of -pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area bythe community. To have areas suitable for -both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and dimatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the. eommuntty. ✓ Minimum Standard --A Deryious area shall be landsca ed see RMC4-4-C7R Landsca ire ✓ Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the'City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: 4n designated pedestrian --oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates, For all other streets, street tree treatment shalt be as determined by the City of Renton (see Illustration, subsection RMC4-3-100.H3a). +, Minimum Standard, The proposed iandsraping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. r Minimum Standard: The -landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development, Minimum Standard: Surface parking, areas shall be screened by landscapinp, in order to reduce views of parked can from streets see RMC 4,4-08DF7 Landsmue fie iiirernentsi. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk see illustration. subsection RMC 4-3-1D13.4 R . f Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 3D lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Drofiak :S.pas-tinents Site Plan Agprosral Pile No.: 1,UA-09-112; SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 12 2.. Recreation Areas and Common Dpen Space: Not Applicable E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: -intent-.To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfot"table an a human scale, anG uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured our feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. +� Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet •� Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of Installation. Not Compliarit Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. St Comment Stuff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit o landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years 'in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit, ✓ Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Re uired Amount: ToW Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not-Compifant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature Leight of at least 35 feet, Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball? respectively. Staff Comment The applicant is proposing to retain most df the trees on site in order to maintain the rnature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. 'Therefore the landscape sparing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not necessary. Alf new parking areas would com with the minimum standard for tree spacing. ./ (4) Lip to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. Y (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage w'ith'in three years o . pianbng; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is compiete. ✓ (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. ,✓ Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation pion was nor submitted as part of the application. Therefore staf recommends, as o condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation pJan to and b,. approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permr' appraval. 2.. Recreation Areas and Common Dpen Space: Not Applicable E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: -intent-.To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfot"table an a human scale, anG uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise 0 0 Draf1a1; Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-49-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 13 ffaf re. racter anel iVtassing: re that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all ng, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall Include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (0). StafF-Comment- The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for'the southern and western facades. The two street -fa cing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements; however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement, . The applicant is proposing two SD -foot vestibules along -the approximate 500jbot eastern fagade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 405vot intervals. However, extending poropet; clerestories, canopies, ornamented fighting and a lame planter box with- an iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large 'fagade. Based on the limitations of uttering the. existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7a' St facing fogade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use of three pilaster eiemerrts similar to that which is used to wrap around the Gamlen Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual lritemsT, which break up the wall plane, ,there are additional elements that could be added or used to repiace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staffrecommends, as a condition of approva4 that the applicant submit revised eievatian4 fur the northern spade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Z. Ground -Level Details: intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the Intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interr-st. Not compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited, A wail (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a ,blank wail if. (a) tt is a ground floor wall or portion of ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, datar, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing, StQf Go r 7ment: See Comments above. Nat Comp#iant Minimum Standard. Where blank walls are required 'or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wal l; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the Intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or f e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment: See comments above. 0 Drofiak Apartinents Site Plan Approval File No.: 1.,ZA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Patre 14 Minimum Standard: Treatment of biank Ovalis shall be proportional to the wall. V Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian-orlented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or door's. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern fopode. However, the applicant has provided. extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to Break up the monotony of the large fopade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided stuff hos found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fapde for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as ❑ condition of approval, the applicant provide rev&ed elevatians.for the eastern fapade prior to building permit approval, The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the fallowing in order to .achieve o human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/ar planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade, Mir irnum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the fallowing: .x (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. Hrnuever, screening may be.applied to provide shade and energy efficiency, The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. (b) Oispiay windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing d (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 5, Building hoof Lines: intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. d Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiies; (a) Extended parapets; {b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 154 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. v✓ Minimum Standard 5creenin� features shall blend with the architectural character of the building,cori5istent with RMC 4-4-095E Roof -Tog Eauioment. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of erooseC portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the appiic❑rnt match the calor of the roof -mounted mechanical equiomerrt to the color of exposed portions of the miff. 4, Building Materials: 0 Drofiak Apa�tmmts Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Paye 1 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage me use or mazcridn, that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the nei hborhaod. Not Compliant MinimurnStandard: All sides of Buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on afl sides with the same building materials, detailing, and rotor scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: It appears that all sides -of the structure are finished using the same color scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure• that quolity materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to buiiding permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. gqff Comment• See comments above. Not cornpfiant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Copkant ms Minimum -Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as calors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Ste Comment See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and int,!rest N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral art of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and Signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs Include: 1. Pole signs; It. Roof signs; W. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or Illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back-lit-logc signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and muftl-use buildings, sign age shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. tV-- N/A smvm Standard: Entry shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night- ightplot NotCompliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior iighting regulations lacated in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior Dn-5lte_ Staff Comment Stuff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without carting excessive glare on adjacer►t properties at the time of budding permit review. Pedestrian scale and downfighting shall be used in all.cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions focated in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-51te. 0 DroBak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 16 Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, -but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. 5Luff Cn menC See comments above Not Compliant minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at buiiding facades, and at pedesMarr-oriented spaces. 5t Comment. See comments above CON CLUSI01\1S : I , The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those. criteria are generally represented in part by the following eumneratiory a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision 'for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operati on could create new iobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The ne , design features aril] also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. 3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements.for the setback along its frmtage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only au incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,040 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maxim= front }yard setback of 15 feet As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive'setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot cvverkge meets the tonin« Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesi-- of the pang area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer siandard. iwouId rem.o-ve the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be deteriniiic:d when actual permits for construction are submitted. 4. The twc�-stony facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and th- Drofiak Apartrnmts Site Plan Approval File Na.: LUA-09-112, SA -14 May 13, 2010 page 17 . large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extaasive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps tfse transition between a rather large big bcrx store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background Wak art store, The new facade treatment'with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the pang islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a beam neighbor tl= the existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot. 5. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping m the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parlting . is a dominant_feat= and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape Sequirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall. landscaping. Pedestrian ]inks through the site and to the suzrannding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow -pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. 6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. 7. Access to the subject site will not be -changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of can oimling the lot lool;iagg for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways -and amenities near the front of the store have been enhmoed. 8. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather lout -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoin uses drat share the block with the applicant`s use_ 9. The store is served by existing urban inirastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwatmr treatment with an additional bioswale. 10.' In addition -to-the general site plam review criteria discussed above, there are District .Cruidcbnes that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted M' this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion -meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their proj ect may not precisely meet some of the standards. 11. The applicant sought and received a -modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears Haat the proposed area and -methods meet the obj ectives of the standards. The enclosure will have to meet the standards for contazzrnent and screening_ l 2. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of rernodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 16 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the ' overall] block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional .or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in the large space between the street and actual store. 13. The applicant dad not submit appropriate lighting details with, the exception of proposing light standards Drofiak .4partmrnts Site.Plan Approval Fite No.: LUA-09-1'12, SA -E May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications. That is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet_ As discusser) above, visitors to. the site will more than iik-Jy not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is art overriding reasan not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the luting standards that City. has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter area's of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15, staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of c -,O sting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing ar false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines, 16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances.the existing buildins s appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parldng" but as noted, additional parking cuts down. on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt DECISION: The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the fallowing conditions; 1. The applicant shall comply with the six raitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non- significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010, 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the prop_rty's lot lines as depicted or Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lint&, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards -of the CA zone can be met. S. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prio, to building peririit approval, Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closin« doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing. is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequattly provide for public safety; without caring excessive glare an adjacent properties at tine time of building pezmt review. Pedestrian scale anal downiighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement unless altemative pedestrian scale liGhting has been approved administrative}y or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Ligthtina, aterioT On -Site. The applicant shall comply, with. the newer standards including 25-f6ot height limitations. 5. The applicant shall submit a landseape maintenance surety deViGC for a period of no less than three v --a7 in sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to i-rrrparan+ occunanc" permit. 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No_: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 19 6. The applicant shall submit m irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fayade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat -the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Cuumt Planning Project Managerprior to -building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations. shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area., beneatb the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment m the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trite or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. - 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical .equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. he applicant sh&U subunit a materials and color board subject to the .approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. Additional or larger landscape specirams should be use *here smaller or stunted tne_ s might exist. ORDERED -THIS 13" day of May 2010. FRED J. KAUF AN HEARING EXAN,[1NER TRANSM1= THIS 13fi' day of May 2010 to the parties of record Rocale Timmons Kays Kittrick Community R Economic Dov Community 8: EGoriamio Dev City of Renton City of Renton Jack McCullough McCullough & IEII 701 5a' Avenue, Ste, Seattle, WA 98104 Jeff Chambers PACLAND 7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 48109 Peter B=ell .Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, Ste, 509 Bellevue., WA 98004 Jeremy Smith, Manager W almart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Qsagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects 2.11 N Record Street, Ste, 22 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager Viralmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 48057 Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophom Clue, Assistant Anapoa Toleafoa ICS Loader Walmart #2516 Wah art #2516 Walrn.art #x2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave 5 743 Rzinier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton: WA 98057 Renton, 1A'A 98057 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14 May 13, 2410 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr, Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart 92516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S. 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavricn, ICS Asssociate Marl: Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA- 98057 Renton, WA 48057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager William Carey, Jr. Safety Tun Ld. Francis Canapi Walmart #2516 W aimart #2516 Walmart #2516 743. Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98457 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. PetslChern/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr. Walmart 92516 Walmast #2516 Waimart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, VirA 98057 Josie Mervetrs, Dept. Mgr W alrnart #516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Irish Toy E. Layador, Ent, Sup -v. Waltnart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton WA 98057 TRANSMI'T'TED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Lain Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegiau, Council Liaison Gregg Zirnrnennan, PBPVV Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development 3ennifm- Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Senrices Marty Viine-, Assistant CAO Automotive Valerie Reyes, ]CS Lead Supe. 2"6 Shift Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, R`A 98057 Dave Pargas, Fire Lam Meckling, Building Officia-1 Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Devolopment Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code. request for reconsideration must be filed in wri4inm an or before 5.00 p.m- 1Viar 27.200. Anti aggrieved person feelinL• that the decision of the Examiner I., ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure. errors of lav or fact. error in judgment, or the disco�lary of nein evidence which could Dat be reasonably- ar,aiiable at the prior hearing ma; mane a Nwitten request for a review by the Exar..niner within fourteen f 141 days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This reyuesi shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant.. and the Examiner may. after review of the record. take further action as he deem!, proper. Drafiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.. LUA-09-132, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section I10, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meotiag other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An a veal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m.. May 27.2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants mrM be required prior to approval bar City C_o nlcil or final �proceesing of the fife. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) co=uni.catians may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that patties to a land use decision may not cozen =i.cate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the laud use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council, All communications concecning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication peffiits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence_ Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court, The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. OFFICE ORTHRHEARMG EXAMINER FOR TIJE: CITY 0P RENTON N RE; WALMART EXPANSION SITE. PLAN APPROVAL FILE ND.: L _!A 10=009, ECF, SA -H TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS' CITE.' OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC 14EARING TUESDAY, APRIL 27`h, 20I0 REN TON, WA'SHT14OT0N .APPEARANCES: Presiding: °FJZED KAUFKAN Forthe Applicant: JACK McC 1LLOUGH For -Development Servacess ROCALE TIMMONS CERTIFICATION OF TRANS CROER I, Kristina Wescon, prepared the attached trance ipt'from CD -recordings of the:above.-identified proceeding. I certify under, penalty of:pedury under the laws ofthe State of W.ashiWon that the attached is atrue;correct and complete transcript:'o'Fthose-:proceedings to the best ofbiv ability.. DATED tl is. day -of 201 q. Kri 1�Jescatt 320. 'State Hwy :1;04 PO B -ox 255 Port Gamble W'A 983.64 3601"62.1-0315 1 HEARLNG EXAMINER: I would like to call to order the Tuesday, April 27tH, 2010 2 session of the Office of the Hearing Examiner. My name is Fred Kaufman. I am the Hearing 3 Examiner for the City. Seated to my front and left is Nancy Thompson. She does run recording 4 equipment. We do record the entire public proceeding. Development Services is represented 5 this morning by Rocale Timmons. She will be delivering the preliminary report to the Examiner. 6 It is a recommendation. It may be affected by any testimony we do receive at the public hearing 7 today. Other members of Staff may testify as necessary. A copy of today's agenda is posted 8 outside the Chamber doors. There also should be a copy of the agenda and a preliminary report 4 to the Examiner on the back credenza. If you haven't received a copy of those items, you can do 10 that now. 11 The purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing on the applications pursuant to 12 Ordinance Number 30-71. This hearing constitutes the hearing of the City Council. It is the 13 only public hearing which will be held on the matter unless the matter is continued. 14 Reconsideration by the Examiner or an appeal to the City Council will only consider the 15 evidence submitted at today's hearing. 16 Is it on? Because I don't hear it right now... 17 Unless I request additional time (inaudible) findings and conclusions will be issued in 18 fourteen days of today's hearing. In all rezones, preliminary plats and PUDs, the Examiner's 19 report is the recommendation to the City Council (inaudible) decision I issue is final. Further 20 information about the appeals and reconsideration procedures will be contained with the 21 Examiner's report. You may also contact the City Clerk's office, the Building — or Ms. Rocale 22 Timmons' division - or the Examiner's Office for further information about the appeal and 23 reconsideration procedures. Copies of the Examiner's report will automatically be sent to all PAGE I 1 parties of record. If someone testifies, they will become a party of record. If someone is in 2 attendance — excuse me — if someone is in attendance who doesn't testify but would like to 3 become a party of record at the close of the hearing, then give Ms. Thompson your name and 4 address and we would be happy to include you on the roster. 5 Procedure is as follows, I will call the application, ask all those who are going to testify 6 to take the following affirmation. do you affirm that the facts you are now about to give in the 7 matter being heard is the truth, to which you respond, I do. At that point, Ms. Timmons will 8 review the preliminary report. Again, it will be affected by testimony and written submissions - 9 After that the applicants may testify in support; other members of the applicant's team may also 10 testify; if there is opposition to the request or neutral questions, there will be an opportunity for 11 that; support from the general public — there will also be an opportunity for that. During the 12 course of the proceeding, I may ask questions. If there are no unresolved questions, the hearing 13 would be closed. If for what ever reason, there are unresolved questions, the hearing would be 14 continued to a time and date certain. As I indicated, the hearing is recording_ We ask anybody 15 who testifies to step to microphone at the podium,. state your name, spell your last name, give 16 your complete mailing address including zip code. If someone speaks again out of turn, for 17 whatever reason, just restate your last name so we can tell who is testifying at that point on the 18 hearing recording. This is an administrative hearing. We do not adhere to strict rules of 19 evidence. Please anything you say should be relevant, please avoid repetitious testimony. 20 The only item on this morning's agenda -is the Wal-Mart application for expansion. The 21 file number is LUA 10-009. It is a site approval with the Examiner. The property is located at 22 743 Rainier Avenue South. The property site area is approximately 13.6 acres. And the 23 expansion involves the expansion of the existing retail store, the reduction in the garden center PAGE 2 I area and some other modifications to the site including additional parking. 2 All those who are going to testify, if you could please raise your right hand. 3 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) — 4 HEARING EXANENER: Oh — 5 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) — 6 HEARING EXANENER: Oh — Yeah, we don't use the clock in our hearings. Some 7 people do. All those who are going to testify, please raise your right hand. Do you affirm the 8 facts you are now about to give in the matter being heard is the truth? If so, answer I do. 9 VOICES: I do. 10 HEARING EXAMINER: And if I can remember, we are trying to give the oath 11 individually or ask people to affirm that they've taken the oath when they come up to testify. 12 Ms.Timmons, you're on. 13 TRVIMONS: Good morning, Mr. Examiner. My name is Rocale 14 Timmons, Associate Planner for the Community and Economic Development Department and I 15 will be presenting Staff's recommendation. I'll begin by giving a brief description and then an 16 overview of the proposal's compliance with the City's comprehensive plan, the City's 17 development regulations, the site plan review criteria, as well as the design guidelines. Before I 18 begin, I would like to enter in the following exhibits: Exhibit Number I would be the project 19 file. Exhibit Number 2, the neighborhood detail map_ Exhibit Number 3, the site plan — and Pd 20 like to note that the site plan was not included in Staff's recommendation - Exhibit Number 3 is 21 actually the tree retention plan and Staff's recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Exhibit 22 Number 4 will be the landscape plan. Exhibit Number 5 will be the tree retention plan — this too 23 was also in error to the Hearing Examiner — the actually recommendation included the landscape PAGE 3 I plan for the Exhibit Number 5 — 2 HEARING EXAMINER: In other words, the exhibits in the latter part of the Staff 3 report are mislabeled? 4 TRdMONS: Correct. 5 HEARING EXAMINER: We'll go with the ones you are giving us now, then. 6 TE MONS: Exhibit Number 6 will be the east and west elevations. 7 Exhibit Number 7 will be the north and south elevations. Referring to Exhibit Number 2 before S you on the overhead, the location of the site is just west of Rainier Avenue South and Hardy 9 Avenue Southwest, between Southwest 7"' Street and South Grady Way. The subject site 10 consists of 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the commercial I 1 corridor of land use designation. I should note that there is a small panhandle on the western 12 portion of the site that is designated employment area valley as well as zoned industrial medium, 13 but for -- I'm sorry — 14 HEARING EXAMINER: And where is that because it's hard to distinguish. Is it that 15 top — it's not just the western portion? 16 TDAMONS: Actually, it's for the entire western portion of the site — the 17 exhibit before you today actually extends all the way to Southwest 7th Street and it's for the 18 entire panhandle. 19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. 20 TI_MMONS: Along the western portion of the site. 21 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. 22 TIMMONS: The completed project or the applicant is proposing an 23 expansion of the existing Wal-Mart big -box retail facility in the amount of sixteen thousand PAGE 4 1 square feet which would result in a hundred and fifty thousand square foot retail facility and 2 approximately seven hundred and forty-five parking stalls. In addition to the sixteen thousand 3 square foot addition, the applicant is proposing a reduction in the garden center from nine 4 thousand to approximately four thousand square feet in area as well as an area would be set aside 5 just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. If I could refer to Exhibit Number 3 to 6 show that area. So the exhibit before you — the expansions would be depicted in yellow — the 7 outdoor sales area would be located just north of that expansion area or the yellow area on the 8 northern portion of the structure. 9 HEARING EXAMINER: May -- I don't know if this is the appropriate time — what 10 triggers conforming or non -conforming — there are a number of areas in the project where you've 11 indicated things are non -conforming — panting would be one of them, the size of the stalls, there 12 are some Iight standards and some other aspects of the project. Can a non -conforming -- legal . 13 non -conforming use be expanded under our Code? And is there some trigger factor? 14 TIMMONS: As long as it's not more than a fifty percent expansion. 15 With relation to the parking stalls, there are approximately six hundred and eighteen that are 16 existing_ The applicant is only proposing a hundred and twenty-seven new parking stalls. In 17 terms of the actual structure, we have a hundred and forty thousand square foot structure 18 existing. The applicant is only proposing a sixteen thousand square foot addition. 19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. I may have some specific questions about why or 20 why they cannot increase landscaping or landscape spacing in the parking areas as we get to 21 those different criteria, so -- 22 TEv4MONS: Okay. And as you alluded to, the applicant is also 23 proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage onsite. Access would PAGE 5 1 continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along the perimeter streets and as part of the 2proposal, the applicant is not proposing to change the access. The environmental review 3 committee met in March of 2010 and issued a determination of non -significance mitigated along 4 with six mitigation measures. Those measures pertain to erosion control, geotechnical issues, 5 noise, archeological artifacts and then fire and traffic mitigation — these were also a part of those 6 mitigations. In April of 2010, or April I e, the appeal period ended and no appeals were filed. 7 Staff is recommending as a condition of approval the Hearing Examiner adopt all six mitigation S measures as issued by the environmental renew committee. As mentioned before, the project is 9 located within the commercial corridor comprehensive plan designation. The proposal does 10 comply with all policies within that designation. As it relates to the development regulations of 11 the project, the project is located within the commercial arterial zoning designation. A big -box 12 retail and outdoor sales areas are outright permitted within that zone. 13 HEARING EXAMINER: What are outdoor retail sales? 14 TRYTMONS: So, it — outdoor retail sales, as — 15 HEARING EXAIVIINER: As opposed to the gardening type, so on — 16 Ti IMONS: It would be specifically for the garden center. 17 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. 18 TIMMONS: Lot coverage for this site is limited to sixty-five percent. 14 The applicant is proposing a hundred and forty thousand square foot footprint on the sixteen acre 20 site — oh, I'm sorry -- not sixteen acre site — 13.6 acre site and that results in a lot coverage of 21 25.3 percent. In terms of setbacks, the CA zone requires a ten foot minimum front yard setback 22 and a maximum fifteen foot front yard setback. There are no other side or rear yard setbacks in 23 this zone. For the purposes of this review, the front yard setback would be assessed from Hardy PAGE 6 I Avenue Southwest and Rainier Avenue South. The proposal does not comply with the 2 maximum front yard setback, however, the proposal to expand does increase the conformity of 3 the project, in that it moves closer — even if it's just by a couple of feet towards to Hardy Avenue 4 and Rainier Avenue South, thereby not requiring the applicant to apply for a variance. In 5 addition, a recent short plat has been approved for the site which would allow the Wal-Mart to 6 site its structure on its own building pad however the short plat has not been recorded therefore 7 Staff recommended as a condition of approval the applicant record the short plat or alternatively 8 depict lot lines as they are when the building permits come in. 9 HEARING EXAMINER: And do you have a depiction of the short plat; then, or - ? 10 T /L\40NS: I can enter is as Exhibit Number 8 — 11 HEARING EXAMINER: We're separating off, what, the bank property and the other 12 property in the front - ? 13 TDAMONS: Correct. 14 HEARING EXANMKER: - or east? 15 TONS: Do we need to enter into the record at this moment, or 16 would you like it to see it depicted on the overhead? 17 HEARLNG EXAMINER: We don't Have it in the exhibits so why don't we enter it as 18 Exhibit Number, I think it's 8, right? 19 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) — 20 TEVEMONS: Exhibit 8 will include nine pages of the prepared short plat. 21 HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you just show it visually right now — just the 22 general outline of how the short plat will affect, I guess, the properties between Rainier and the 23 western edge of this site -- it's 7`h and Grady on the north and south. PAGE 7 1 TIM1tiIONS: Referring to page 8 of the 9 — actually, let's look at 9 of 9. 2 The proposal includes two existing lots which by — the existing lot line bisects Lot 1. The new 3 short plat would create three lots giving Columbia Bank its own building lot, which would be 4 Lot 2, and Jimmie Max Restaurant its awn lot, Lot 3, and then the Wal-Mart building pad would 5 have its own lot and that would be Lot 1. 6 HEARING EX 4N NER: Again, Lot 1 doesn't include just the store footprint then, 7 it's - I see it's below, by Lot Number 3, sort of labeled — S TMNIONS: Correct, and that - 9 HEARING EXAMENER: - and includes all associated parking and -- 14 TEVIMONS: Correct, and landscaping. I should mention that there is an 11 existing restaurant located on the western portion of the site, which is Billy McHales. The 12 applicant has proposed to demolish that restaurant as part of the short plat application and it is a 13 condition of short plat approval. 14 HEARD G EXANIIN'ER: Their onion rings will be missed but its been years — the 15 parking, though, will be shared by the Lot 1 and 3, is that how it's working out across access 16 easement or some kind? 17 TMAONS: Actually, no. The only access easement would be just for 18 that (inaudible) access. Each building — or each lot has its own parking for their pertaining 19 structure or structure on the site 24 HEARING EXAMINER. Okay. Thank you. 21 TDAMONS: Okay. I should — I'll move into — or I'll continue on with 22 the development regulation review. The CA zone limits its height to fifty feet. The applicant is 23 proposing a maximum height of thirty-two feet and four inches. If I could now refer to Exhibit PAGE 8 I Number 6, which is the eastern and western elevations. And it is challenging the dimensions 2 depicted on the elevation however the existing structure is approximately twenty-one feet in 3 height. The expansion of the building to the north would match that existing height and the 4 applicant has provided varied roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade in order to break 5 up the massing of the structure into smaller increments. The elements include a curved parapet 6 that you see in the center of the elevation which is the maximum height ofthe building at thirty- 7 two feet and four inches. Parapets on either side which also extend beyond the flat roof are 8 approximately twenty-five feet and eight inches. The proposal does comply with the height 9 requirements of the CA zone. 10 With regard to tree retention, I'd like to refer now to Exhibit Dumber 5. There are ninty- 11 nine trees existing onsite. The applicant is proposing to remove approximately fifteen trees. 12 Staff has relayed to the applicant that the retention of existing mature vegetation onsite should be U retained as much as possible. Staff has found that the applicant has complied with Staffs 14 request to retain vegetation. As a result of the retention of the vegetation, to address some of the 15 questions you had earlier, it was challenging at best to re -organize or re -stripe the existing 16 parking layout for the existing stalls, therefore the spacing for the landscape islands could not be 17 reorganized_ 18 HEARING EXAMINER: New parking will meet current code conditions, though? 19 TTEAMQNS: Correct. Referring to Exhibit Number 4, the applicant's 20 landscape plan, the CA zone requires a ten foot landscape strip along all street frontages. The 21 applicant has proposed to enhance existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of 22 the site. Approximately fifty-five feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Avenue 23 as well as twenty feet of landscaping along Southwest 7�h Street. The proposal complies with PAGE 9 I landscaping —.the landscaping widths of the CA.zone. 2 HEARING EXANMr ER: What about the landscaping within the parking? They 3 obviously have a range of parking between six hundred and something and the amount they are 4 providing of seven hundred and forty-five. Couldn't more landscaping be introduced into the 5 existing parking lot? What's the separation? Is it thirty-six or thirty- I can't remember right now 6 (inaudible) - 7 TMMONS: They are required to have intervening landscaping every 8 sixth parking stalls and the applicant has provided that within the new parking area. As 9 mentioned before; to retain existing vegetation or mature vegetation on the site, it was 10 challenging to reorganize the existing parking lot layout with respect to interior parking. I I landscaping, the applicant is required to provide thirty-five feet — square feet -- of landscaping for 12 each parking stall. The applicant is proposing seven hundred and forty-five parking stalls which 13 approximately requires the applicant to provide twenty-six thousand square feet in landscaping in 14 the interior of the site. The applicant is proposing thirty thousand square feet (inaudible) — 15 HEARLKG EXA.N NER: Well, I realize that — but I guess looking at this plan just at 16 the northern end of the building, if you started moving to the east into the parking area — well, 17 east of the building — yeah — in that area there. Couldn't we eliminate a couple of parking stalls 18 and put additional landscaping in — I mean, that's not hard to conform to that policy — they could 19 save the mature landscaping in the existing islands or, you know, isle areas and remove two spots 20 or four spots and increase landscaping? 21 TEVEMONS: Well, something that we wanted to do was make it so that — 22 or Staff wanted to do — was make it so that the landscaping that is provided onsite actually 23 enhanced or buffered the landscaping so what we tried to do is get the applicant to put the PAGE 10 I landscaping --- as much landscaping as possible on the perimeter of the site and that's how we .2 achieved a fifty-five foot landscape width along Rainier Avenue South and Southwest 7t' Street, 3 a twenty foot landscape strip there. 4 HEARING EXAMINER: But breaking up asphalt in the, you know, large -- and it is a 5 large parking lot — 6 TIMMONS: It is. 7 HEARING EXAMINER: It seems like it miglxt be also appropriate to accomplish. 8 TlVLMi ONS: well, I will let the applicant speak to whether or not that is 9 possible. 10 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Obviously, there would be a trade off. Parking 11 stalls would have to be lost if you wanted to try increasing the landscaping in the sea of asphalt. 12 TEVLMONS: Based on Staff recommendation, we just thought that the 13 perimeter landscaping was sufficient and that it would buffer the parking lot sufficiently. With 14 regard to the parking analysis, the applicant is required to provide a minimum of six hundred 15 parking stalls and a maximum of seven hundred and fifty-one parking stalls. The applicant has 16 proposed seven hundred and forty --five of which six hundred and eighteen are existing. As 17 mentioned before, the hundred and twenty-seven stalls would comply with the new — with 18 dimensional requirements of the Code however the existing stalls do not comply with 19 dimensional requirements. However, as the situation is existing, Staff found that there was no 20 need to require a parking modification. 21 The applicant has applied for a parking modif — or a refuse modification — I'm sorry — in 22 order to reduce the refuse area from fifteen hundred square feet to thirty cubic yards. The 23 modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor which has been PAGE 11 I engineered for high volurne usage. The appeal period for this modification ended on April 161 2 and no appeals were filed. 3 HEARING EXAMINER: Any trial period to make sure this new equipment works 4 appropriately and provides the amount of recycling refuse that's need for the site? 5 TMMONS: Staff has not at this time recommended a trial period. 6 FFARING EXAMDJER: Okay. 7 T /IMONS: The applicant did not provide screening detail for that S refuse and recycle area, therefore, Staff is recommending as a condition of approval, the 9 applicant provide screening detail which is compliant with the refuse and recycle standards as 10 well as the design standards of the Renton use code. As for the site plan review analysis, Staff 11 does anticipate adverse impacts to surrounding properties or the site due to the scale of the site. 12 The structure would not take up more than a quarter of the proposed — or the resulting site after I3 the short plat. Expansions are confined to the same general area as you see before you —just to 14 the northern portion of the existing retail store and then slight,additions or small additions to the 15 eastern portion of the store. Staff has found that the proposed expansion would not affect the 16 compatibility with the existing uses — with existing use and surrounding uses of the site_ 17 However, it is challenging to get a large, big -box retail facility to be compatible with smaller 18 retail structures which surround the site. The applicant has proposed several architectural 19 elements along the eastern facade — referring back to Exhibit Number 6 — these elements include 20 canopies, extended parapets, clerestory windows — there is a large planter box that you see at the 21 center of the elevation with an iconic tree as well as benches and smaller human scale elements 22 along the front fagade. 23 HEARING EXAMINER: I liked, an iconic tree — PAGE 12 I . TIMMONS: Let's see --- the elements along with increased setbacks as 2 well as varying roof heights divide the fagade into smaller increments which bring relativity to 3 the smaller structures that surround the site. The human scale elements along with the fagade 4 treatments on the northern elevation will be discussed when I get to the design review. I would 5 also like to note that Staff has received several letters as well as a petition, including several 6 signatures, demonstrating community support for the proposed expansion. Conservation of area - 7 wide property values are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. And 8 if I could refer back to Exhibit Number 3, the site plan, as part of the site plan review, Staff 9 looked at the efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. As mentioned before, the access 10 would remain the same for the proposed — or for the proposal. The applicant has provided an I 1 efficient layout with regard to parking. All parking stalls will be ninety degree angles. There are 12 existing pedestrian — or one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east 13 elevation to Rainier Avenue South. The applicant is proposing to increase the width of that 14 pedestrian corridor as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian 15 connection is being proposed from the northern portion of the structure to Southwest 7t` Street. 16 The applicant, in term of light and air, the applicant is proposing three to five additional parking 17 lot lighting poles with a height of forty feet and this is in order to match the existing lights that 18 are onsite and surrounding properties. While this exceeds the limit of twenty-five feet, Staff 19 would support additional light poles in order to maintain a site cohesiveness as lona as lighting 20 does not spill over onto adjacent. properties_ Staff— 21 HEARING EXAMINER: I guess I have to ask — can we shrink all the ones that are 22 there rather than increasing three that don't comply with code? 23 TEVEMNS: I will let Kayren Kittrick speak to the Iighting. PAGE 13 1 HEARING EXAMINER: I mean, it's supposed to comply with Code and we can 2 maintain consistency across the site if we shrink the ones that don't comply with. Code, rather 3 than allowing new ones that don't comply with Code. 4 TDIMONS: Well, that is in the Hearing Examiner's purview, however, 5 there are several more than three to five poles existing so they are legally non -conforming and 6 there wouldn't be more than a fifty percent increase so. _. Staff has recommended as a condition 7 of approval that the applicant provide a lighting plan depicting both existing and new lights 8 conforming with - the new lights - conforming with the spill over requirements of the Renton 9 Municipal Code, In terms of noise, potential short term impacts are anticipated that would 10 normally be associated with the construction of additions for this project, however, the applicant 11 has provided a geotechnical report where the use of pipe piling was mentioned — noise and 12 vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving, however, the environmental review 13 committee has issued a SEPA mitigation measure stating if pipe piles are used to support the 14 proposed structure, the applicant will be required to provide a noise and vibration study prior to 15 construction permit approval. 16 HEARING EXAMINER: Again, there's not much residential development in this 17 immediate area? 18 TIMMONS- Correct. It would just be impacts to commercial. 19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. 20 TI1vIMONS: In terns of public services, there are adequate public 21 facilities serving the site. With regard to drainage, the applicant has submitted a technical 22 infonnation report stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than 0.5 cubic 23 feet per second, therefore the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. However, PAGE 14 I additional water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bioswale which is just 2 north of the expanded parking lot area. 3 The proposal is not expected to cause deterioration or blight. With regard to the design 4 district standards, the applicant is located within the design district D, as in David, which 5 includes a minimum design standard that are to be met and if they cannot be met, the applicant 6 must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the Code The proposal complies with the Urban 7 Design. District as long as conditions of approval have been met.. 8 With regard to site design, if 1 could refer back to Exhibit Number 6 - the eastern and 9 western elevations — the proposed elevations meet the site design and building location minimum 10 standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Staff has already recommended I I that the applicant provide screening detail for the refuse and recycle. The proposal does not 12 comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access, mainly due to the location 13 of existing surface parking and that is because it is located in between the building and the street 14 referring back to — this is actually Exhibit Number 4. However, the situation is existing and the 15 applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot through the use of 16 landscaping, mainly accomplished through the retention and enhancement of existing 17 landscaping as well as the enhanced landscaping along Rainier Avenue and Southwest 7`h Street. 18 The proposal does comply with the minimum standards for all minimum standards within the 19 pedestrian environment. 20 With respect to landscaping, the applicant has met most of the minimum design standards 21 as long as the landscaping maintenance (inaudible) device is provided as well as an irrigation 22 plan. Staff has recommended both the (inaudible) device and an .irrigation plan be submitted. 23 There is also a requirement to plant one tree per every six parking stalls which cannot be PAGE 15 I complied with for existing parking stalls due to the retention of existing vegetation however all 2 new stalls would be planned — would have landscaping planted at every intervening sixth stall. 3 With regard to architecture — referring back to Exhibit Number 6 — the applicant has 4 found —or Staff has found that the applicant has provided a very creative design with respect to 5 the front elevations of the store. Many of the minimum standards for building architecture and 6 design were still not met. Staff only Iooked at the two street -facing elevations in that the other 7 elevations were not being altered. Specifically, the building cannot be modulated every forty 8 feet. Blank walls were provided in the public realm as well as seventy-five percent of the front -9 elevation did not consist of transparent windows. Finally, it was not clear whether or not the 10 color of rooftop equipment would match the color of the exposed roof. Staff has recommended 11 as a condition of approval that the applicant match the rooftop equipment with the exposed 12 portions of the roof. As for building architecture, there are many limitations based on the need to 13 alter an existing structure therefore Staff has found that the intent for the front elevation has been 14 met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of a human scale element and while 15 there are pedestrian amenities provided within a plaza area located just south of the north 16 entrance, Staff has found that additional elements could be provided in that area so Staff is 17 recommending as a conditional of approval the applicant provide additional human scale 18 elements. While there are many ways to achieve this human scale character, Staff would not like 19 to limit the options but highly recommends the applicant either provide artwork, additional 20 glazing or landscaping or some type of planter box just to enhance human scale character of that. - 21 area. As for the other street -facing facade which is the northern elevation — and this is Exhibit 22 Number 7 — proposed treatments appear to be very uniform in nature and do not do much to 23 break up the monotony of that facade, therefore Staff is recommending as a condition of PAGE 16 1 approval that the applicant provide revised elevations with additional elements that could either 2 enhance the pilaster elements provided or replace them all together. Finally, Staff is 3 recommending the applicant provide a building materials and colors board in order to ensure that 4 quality materials have been provided. 5 In summary, Staff recommends approval of the Wal-Mart expansion with ten conditions. 6 Would you like me to list them? 7 HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you do that. You don't have to read there all in 8 detail but sort of summarize what they require. 9 TIMMONS: The applicant is — oh, I'm sorry — Staff is recommending 10 that the applicant comply with all six mitigation measures issued by the Environmental Review I 1 Committee; the applicant will be required to record the short plat or alternatively depict lot lines 12 as they are when building permits come in; screening detail for the refuse and recycle area shall 13 be provided; Condition Number 4, the applicant will require to provide a lighting plan; Condition 14 Number 5, the applicant will be required to provide a maintenance (inaudible) devise; Condition 15 Number 6, the applicant will be required to provide a irrigation plan; Exhibit Number 7, revised 16 elevation shall be provided for the northern facade which depict alternative methods to mask and 17 treat the facade, Condition Number 8, revised elevations for the eastern facade shall be provided 18 which include a human scale or additional human scale elements; Condition Number 9, rooftop 19 equipment shall match the color of the exposed portions of the roof; and then finally, Condition 20 Number 10, a materials and colors board shall be provided. 21 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. The applicant or representative? 22 McCULLOUGH: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. My name is lack McCullough. 23 My address is 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, Washington, 99104. PAGE 17 I HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. 2 McCULLQUGH: Thank you. I'm here today on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, 3 Incorporated, and PacLand Engineering, the applicant. Just we have very brief presentation. I'll 4 outline what that will be for you today. I'll say at the outset there is a certain element of Ground 5 Hog Day to these proceedings — thinking of the Bill Murray film — I think it was sixteen years 6 ago that we were not here but in the old City Hall working on the site plan approval for the 7 existing store out here and in the time since Wal-Mart has looked a number of different ways of 8 updating and expanding this store. It is a tight site, given the size of the store and the 9 configuration of the roads and then the other uses there that and the Bonnell family ownership. 10 And one time we were looking at a much larger; more significant extension - maybe involving a 11parking garage, this sort of thing; couldn't really make it work in a way that made sense on the 12 site, given an existing parking layout and such and so what you see today what we think is kind 13 of the right sized approach to finding a way to expand the store, to update the elevations, to bring 14 a broader product mix to the store, and to provide something that updates this store with respect 15 to the City's design cruidelines. So, today we're going to have Jeff Chambers from PacLand 16. Engineers come up and talk about this site, not duplicate the testimony already that you have 17 heard but to try to focus in on some of the questions the Examiner has asked_ I think you will 18 find that with respect to landscaping, we tend to see this not so much as a sea of asphalt but 19 maybe a series of interconnected bays of asphalt across the site — 20 HEARING EXAMINER: Glass half full — half empty. 21 McCU'LLQUGH: Yeah, there you go. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. 22 HEARING EXAMINER: It's hard to not call a sea of asphalt, a sea of asphalt; 23 frankly. There is a lot of asphalt out there. PAGE 18 I McCULrLOUGH: Yes. So, as Mr. Chambers will explain, there has been a lot 2 of attention paid to the planters out -- the planting areas -- and in fact some of them have bee 3 expanded in size rather than interposing additional planting islands here. The parking 4 requirements of the Code, as the Examiner knows, create a range within which the project has to fall and, you know, Wal-Mart has experience with nearly four thousand stores domestically here 6 and has a pretty good idea of what is parking — its actual parking demands are, so really we come 7 at this two ways. One is looking at Code compliance and this project complies. But we also S have to look at parking from an actual demand point of view because what kind of parking based 9 on experience across the country and experience with this store is going to be expected at this 10 location and the seven hundred and forty-five stalls that are proposed in the site are really -- the 11 applicant believes necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this 12 facility and to make sure that we don't have impacts on adjoining uses and such. 13 So, the -- Mr. Chambers will also talk a little bit about the refuse areas and the nature of 14 the equipment which the company is familiar — it's used in other locations — so we can get that 15 on the record. Talk about the lighting as well. It's important since we're not touching most of 16 the parking field that we — the goal of this project is to leave it as it is; try to enhance it in some 17 particular ways but leave those lighting standards. if you reduce the height of lighting standards, 18 what happens, as Mr. Chambers will explain, is that you end up then having to - in order to 19 achieve safe lighting levels in the parking lot, you have to increase by a significant factor the 20 number of lighting standards in the parking field and so it — you end up with much more 21 cluttered look and you end up really having to redo the entire parking field to accomplish that. 22 So, we will also have a presentation on the architectural side just to walk through the elevations, 23 answer any questions — the Staff has suggested conditions that would have us come back and PAGE 19 I look at some additional design treatment on the east facade and the north facade and here — for 2 the record— I'll just say we endorse and support those conditions. We'll accept them and believe 3 that based on our working relationship with the City that we'll have no problem coming to a 4 favorable and mutually acceptable understanding there. So, I'll ask Jeff Chambers to come up 5 and, Mr. Chambers, you've been sworn in. 6 CHAMBERS: Jeff Chambers, PacLand, C -H -A -M -B -E -R -S, 1505 7 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 305, Seattle, Washington, 98109. S HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. 9 CHAMBERS: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. As Mr. McCullough had stated, 10 I would like to just kind of explain a few of the items that you brought up in discussion. First of 11 all, with the landscaping, when we had discussions with Staff, they expressed interest in 12 definitely keeping as many of the mature tees as possible on the site. What we also did at the 13 time was we have an existing walkway that's on the site that's . approximately about a four — 14 three or four foot sidewalk that extends through the middle of the site and as we're looking at 15 Exhibit 4 -- we actually widen that out — created some compact stalls in those locations — the 16 landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately twelve feet wide so 17 rather than adding additional islands in the site - and because when you start to add islands, 18 you're really constrained by stall size — typically on retail, you're going to have next to the 19 islands, you're going to put two foot walkways so people can get in and out of their cars a little 20 easier — rather than constraining the new islands that we want to put in down to about four foot 21 wide with six inch curbs, we agreed with Staff to go ahead and expand the existing islands to 22 about anywhere between ten and twelve feet wide. So we've met the intent of the Code of the 23 thirty-five square foot total per stall. If we went down to the one landscape island every six PAGE 20 1 stalls, we would have gotten rid of quite a few of the — we would have gotten rid of a quite few 2 of the existing mature trees which again was something that Staff had expressed interest in not 3 having happen. As Ms_ Timmons stated; we did add landscaping along Hardy so we lost some 4 stalls when we added the landscape islands out along Hardy and we also lost some land -- some 5 islands — or some parking stalls when we added the landscaping out on 7t!', which was part of the 6 request of Staff_ Do you have any questions at this point about the landscaping, or - ? 7 HEARING EXAM NER: No, I'll let you finish your presentation. 8 CHAMBERS: Okay. As far as the trash compactor — it's pretty standard 9 on large retail buildings - Wal -Marts, Costco's, Targets — they use the trash compactor. In 10 addition to the trash compactor what we also have is a bale and pallet area that we've designed 11 out here, up near the Columbia Bank which will be a CMU wall integral to the building which 12 does allow the storage of the recyclables. So that does — that is part of what helps us reduce the 13 trash storage but again, the compactor — the way it is designed — it's gpicaI of pretty much all 14 retail sites that are of this size. As Mr. McCullough had referenced, the lighting — one thing, you 15 know, when we have site that has existing forty foot lights — with forty foot lights you get a 16 much uniform lighting level across the site. The industry standard is to try have parking areas 17 around four foot-candles; front of store areas, around ten foot-candles. When you have forty foot 18 lights spaced approximately a hundred to a hundred and fifty feet apart, you get that uniformity 19 in the parking lot_ You don't get large increases and decreases in foot-candles in the parking lot. 20 What we have found is that when we go to twenty-five foot lights - the spacing of those lights 21 end up about fifty feet apart — the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot-candle to about 22 eight or nine foot-candles throughout the parking lot, and actually at that point, almost .creates 23 more of an safety concern with lighting being too bright and then going too dark when you have PAGE 21 I I pedestrians walking around in the parking lot. So, not to mention, you know, again, you double 2 the number of lighting standards which when you reduce the height of the lights; it changes your j 3 circuitry; adds a lot more conduit to the parking lot, a lot more circuits to the parking lot, again, 4 we're trying_ to minimize the amount of work we are doing in this parking lot because we're 5 keeping the store open as the expansion is going on — 6 HEARING EXAMINER: So, I guess (inaudible) should suggest Renton change its 7 Code because it's twenty, twenty-five foot standards and they create more pools of Iight and 8 shadow than — 9 CHAMBERS: We understand the intent to reduce height and — but again, 10 uniformity -wise, when you go to lower lights — i I1 HEARING EXAIIV R: Yeah, the lights are almost twice as tall as the building— i 12 CHAMBERS: - creates a lot of problems with bright spots and dark spots i 13 in a parkin& lot. But again, in this site, we are only adding three or four Iights and we're only — 14 we're really adding them just to the north and where the existing restaurant, BiIIy McHaIes, was 15 located. I think that's about all I have got. I don't think I've got anything else. If you have any 16 questions or — 17 McCULLOUGH: Could I ask Mr. Chambers a question really quick just to 1$ clarify, Mr. Examiner? 19 HEARING EXAMINER: Go ahead. 20 McCULLOUGH: I don't think you have the figures but you mentioned. that 21 you increased the size — proposed to increase the size of the islands in the existing parking lot. 22 Do you have an estimate of what percentage -wise, what that represents in terms of —just of the 23 islands — increased landscape area within the existing parking lot? PAGE 22 I HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you just say they'll be bigger. 2 CHAMBERS: Yeah, they'll be bigger -W I would have to - 3 McCULLOUGH: Thank you. 4 CHAMBERS: - approximately — 5 HEARING EXAMINER: From the look on his face, too much speculation is going to 6 be necessary. 7 CHAMFERS: Yeah, I would say approximately it adds about forty 8 percent more landscaping in the parking lot just by doubling the island size. 9 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Anything — and again, I know these are the backs of 10 the buildings — but one never knows what's going to happen. On the south and west fagade, any 11 kind of bas relief or something else that could be — or more painting, I guess, the facades - if you 12 want to show the — maybe a little more colored relief or painting — 13 FEMALE VOICE: (Inaudible) — 14 CHAMBERS:. Yeah, I think I will leave that to — 15 HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, someone else is —that's - ? 16 CHAMBERS: - the architect who will get up and describe the elevations. 17 HEARING EXAMINER. Okay. is CHAMBERS: There's no more questions? 19 HEARING EXAMINER: I don't think so. Thank you. 20 CHAMBERS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Examiner. 21 HEARING EXAMINER: I was jumping ahead a witness, I guess. 22 McC[ TLLOUGH: It's okay. This is Mr. McCullough again. So next we 23 would like to hear from Mr. Usunobun Osage, who is the design architect for this project and he PAGE 23 I can just talk about the project and look at the questions as you've raised them. 2 HEARING EXAMINER.- And so my secretary doesn't get upset afterward, I will ask i 3 you to spell both the first name and the last name. 4 OSAGIE: I intend to do so. Good morning. 5 HEARING EXANf NER: Thank you. I 6 OSAGIE: My naive is Usunobun Osage. The first name is spelled U- 7 S -U -N -O -B -U -N and the last name is O -S -A -G -I -E. And I'm with harry D. Craighead 8 Architect. 9 HEARING EXANflNER: Thank you. 10 OSAGIE: And my address is 211 North Record Street, Suite 222, i 11 Dallas, Texas, zip code is 75202. 12 HEARNG EXAMINER: Can I ask you to repeat the street and maybe spell it i 13 because I didn't quite hear it? 14 OSAGIE: Record. 17 HEARING EXANIINER: Record? R -E -C -O -R -D? 16 OSAGIE. Yes, sir. 17 HEARING EXANE NER: Thank you. 18 OSAGIE: Let me use this opportunity thank the Planning Staff for the 19 hard work they have put in working with us to get the elevation to where we are today and to 20 answer your question right off yes, we can look at the west fagade and add additional colors 21 there as necessary owing to the fact it's all existing wall and we are not intending to do much 22 back there but we can add, you know, add additional colors in the rear. 23 And with that, I will jump into the staff recommendations. The first item, just to touch PAGE 24 I back on the refuse and recycling area, we intend to comply with the screening requirements and 2 provide gates and a roof for the compactor area. The design for this area would add — allow us to 3 leave a portion of the roof for ventilation, so gust for the record, that's the design that we are 4 proposing and would like to have that for the record so there are no concerns when the building 5 plans still coming in. b The other item — the elevation — again, we will continue to work with planning Staff to 7 come up with a workable resolution with regard to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities 8 and come up with a workable solution that will make everybody happy, essentially. We are 9 dealing with existing walls along the front wall there — a portion of the wall we are resealing. 10 The store stays open the entire time we are expanding the store so that also poses limitation on 11' which wall we can rebuild and not rebuild but we intend to work with Staff to come up with a 12 workable solution. 13 With regard to the right elevation, again, we agree with Staff recommendation and -- 14 HEARING EXAMINER: Do you want to change the exhibit then? Which one we're 5 talkino a�nait it'c — 16 FEMALE VOICE: 17 HEARING EXAMINER: 18 FEMALE VOICE: 19 HEARING EXAMINER: 20 OSAGIE: 21 HEARING EXA.N MER: 22 FEMALE VOICE: 23 OSAGIE: I think he (inaudible) information — Oh, it is this one? I thought it was — The (inaudible) — Oh, the bottom - Yes, that's what it's of— Okay. (Inaudible) elevation? Yeah, the pilaster treatments — which is the northern -- PAGE 25 I yeah, the north elevation. Again, we will continue to meet with the planning Staff and come up 2 with an architectural elements that is pleasing to the City and we also make everybody happy. 3 That's all if you don't have any other questions or concerns. I will take my seat. 4 HEARLNG EXAMINER: 1 don't know if this is question for you or maybe it was the 5 prior gentleman — the two entrances, is the store going to sort of be divided into food products 6 and I guess, household or clothing? 7 OSAGIE: Yes, the two entrances are actually designed as a S directional access to the store, if you were coming into the store for primarily groceries product, 9 you would enter in the far left— you would enter through this vestibule. 10 HEARING EXAMIN-.R-. The south entrance? 11 OSAGIE: Yes. And if you were corning in for general merchandise 12 and that is mainly the bulk of your shopping experience then you would go in through the north 13 entrance. 14 HEARLNG EXAMINER: Thank you. 15 OSAGIE: Thank you. 16 McCULLOUGH: Mr. Examiner, Mr. McCullough, and that concludes our 17 presentation. I would just say in conclusion that our goal is to take an existirig facility that is 18 non -conforming in some respects to not sit on our hands as it were there, we've tried to leave the 19 — for example, the non -conforming parking field in the front better than we found it, but the 20 Code doesn't require us to bring it into full conformance now and so we've worked with Stair 21 withrespect to increasing landscaping within the parking field and also trying to increase 22 landscaping buffering at the perimeter of the site where it meets the.street property lines as a way 23 to enhance this. Likewise. I think as you see in the store elevations, any of them that are being PAGE 26 i 1 touched or expanded, we're devoting a great deal of resources to, in terms of upgrading and 2 updating and so we again endorse the recommendations of Staff here and ask you to approve the 3 site plan approval that is before with the conditions that are recommended. 4 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you. 5 MCCULLOUGH: Thank you. 6 HEARING EXA 41NER: Is there further testimony in support of the application? Is 7 there testimony in opposition to the application from anybody? And it looks like it is mostly the 8 applicant's team here. Ms. Kittrick, anything? Storm drainage, traffic, other issues that you're 9 interested in? 10 KITTRICK: Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development 11 & Development Services. Actually, most of that was already covered under the short plat. Most 12 of that — all of the issues about storm, etcetera, have been worked out to pretty much our 13 satisfaction subject to final review and permitting -- I'll put it that way. The question about the 14 parking lot lighting in not usually under my purview. 15 HEARENG EXAMINER: I didn't think so. 16 KITTRICK: I'rn used to dealing with the fact that you are supposed to — 17 and I relieve at the time the Wal-Mart was originally built — it was subject to the foot-candles 18 being the foot-candle level that was throughout the City at the time. I was trying to find out 19 when this twenty-five foot height came into being. It was mostly a matter of, indeed, as the 20 gentleman already talked about, a nice even distribution of light. I'm in agreement with the Staff 21 request for a lighting plan, or a lighting design that proves that their light doesn't wander off the 22 property. We are somewhat concerned about excess lighting on the drainage swale that's on the 23 west, I believe — yes, it was on the west. That was a discussion that we've had previously and I PAGE 27 l don't want that increased. That's just — it can't interfere with the function — I j 2 VOICE: The existing bioswale. 3 KI'TTRICK: - the existing bioswale_ Well, and even the new one to a 4 certain degree. So, that's the only thing that I had on it. The forty foot — it probably looks like, 5 yes, it may need a modification but that would be thi ouch Development Services anyway. 6 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Thank you_ Let the record reflect there's nobody 7 else (inaudible), Ms. Titnmons, anything to add at this point? Thank you for coming this $ morning. And we'll get all the new exhibits, including the new one for the short plat. Thank 9 you. 10 [TRANSCRIBER's NOTE: END OF PROCEEDING] 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 73 PAGE 28 OFFICE O'F TJiE HEARING EXA1\41NER. FOR TIIE_Cll'y DF RENTON Pel RF; EXPANSION SITE -PLAN APPROVAL FILL, -NO. 1 LUA VM09, ECF, SA -A TRAN&CUIPT OF PROCR,EDINGS CITY Or RENTON PLANNING D.,E.V,.E-LO,.PMF-NT-'COMM.E'f7E"E THU.R-SDAY,,,AUGU,ST'l�2,.2'0.10. RENTTOK WASHINQ17() N; APPEARANCES: Presiding: CHAIR TERRI BRIERE. KING,.PAR,,KER & RICH ZWICKER, For tk App6ldnt CLAUMA NEWKAN FO ;the Ap c plicant IACK,'M. CULO-QGH FpTDcve]opmciit -S csROCALE TIME ONS -CERTIFICATI(iNbF TRANSCRIBER 11 Kristina Wescott—prepared the attached transcfiptftotn CD rec=ordings of the above-4denlipled pmcecding. . I:cWtifv under penalV of perjury. under -the la -.w. -.s of to State of Washington ington �that the art-act.yed is. , g true, cQTmA and complete t . rAnscriptof those prpceedlifigs to the best of-rny ability.. DATED tfii�A-t day of2= LL 20o. ki-sfina. Wescott 32079 Srate,]Hwy 1:04 PO Box,255 Port Gambie WA 98364 Good afternoon, everyone. We're — let's get started. My 2 name is Tem Briere, I'm chair of the Planning Development Committee, and King Parker is vice 3 chair on my left, and Rich Zwicker, who is a member, and on my right is the City attorney, Larry 4 Warren. And today we are going to be hearing an appeal for the Wal-Mart expansion plans. So 5 if I could have Staff start and then we'll have the appellant. So if you could give us a summary 6 of what's going on. Thank you. 7 TEVIMONS: Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. For the 8 record, my name is Rocale Timmons. I am an Associate Planner representing the Department of 9 Community and Economic Development and I will be presenting a very brief presentation on the IQ applicant's proposal as well as Staffs recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. Including in 11 my presentation are two exhibits that were entered into the record as part of the pubic hearing — 12 Exhibits 3 and 6 — the site plan and the front and rear elevations of the proposed structure. 13 Before you on the overhead is the site plan depicting a 13.6 acre site with an approximately one 14 hundred and thirty-five thousand square foot structure that is currently the existing Wal-Mart 15 facility. Along with the existing facility are associated improvements such as parking and 16 landscaping. The applicant is proposing a sixteen thousand square foot addition to the east and 17 then two vestibules along — I'm sorry — to the north and then two vestibules located on the 18 eastern facade of the existing structure. Also associated with the proposed expansion is a 19 reduction of four thousand square feet for the garden center as well as an increase in parking as 20 well as architectural, pedestrian landscaping and infrastructure improvements. 21 The project is located within our commercial arterial and industrial medium zoning 22 designations however, as a majority of the portion of the site is located in the commercial arterial 23 zoning designation, those are the standards that were applicable for Staff s review. Specifically, PAGE I I the CA zone requires a ten foot. minirnum, front yard setback and also requires a maximum fifteen 2 front yard setback. However, within the City's Code, there is an allowance for an increase in the 3 maximum setback if certain criteria can be met. To describe that criteria briefly, the project 4 would need to include enhanced pedestrian connections, as well as distinctive architecture along 5. the front fagade, mitigation of the visual dominance of a parking lot and then mitigation of 6 conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The applicant has proposed the retention and 7 enhancement of existing landscaping onsite, mainly throughout the parking area to the east of the 8 existing structure. Additionally, they've enhanced the front the frontage landscaping along 9 Rainier Avenue and Hardy Avenue Southwest in the amount of fifty-five feet in width as well as 10 there is a twenty foot width of landscaping provided along Southwest 7, Street. There is an 11 internal pedestrian connection that connects the eastern facade of the structure to Rainier Avenue 12 South and that pedestrian connection is also being proposed to be enhanced along with — or, 13 which would include a widening of the pedestrian connection as well as pedestrian lighting. The 14 applicant has also proposed pedestrian amenities along the eastern fagade which include a 15 pedestrian plaza, pedestrian -scale lighting and then benches as well. 16 And then if I could refer to Exhibit Number 6, which depicts the eastern fagade — kind of 17 challenging to see on the overread — the applicant has proposed several architectural elements 18 along this fagade which were used to distinguish two new building entrances. Elements include 19 clerestory windows, extending parapets, canopies, two vestibule locations located at the 20 entrance, ornamental lighting and then a large planter box in the center with an iconic tree. 21 These elements along with the increased setbacks ironically divide the building's mass into 22 increments that increase the relativity to the street as well as to surrounding structures beyond 23 what's existing. Based on the proposal, along with conditions of approval, Staff found that the PAGE 2 I applicant complied with the criteria to increase the maximum setback of the zone. Additionally, 2 the reviewing official may also modify the maximum setback requirement if the physical site 3 constraints can cause the setback requirement to not be met. And given the existing 4 improvements reasonably preclude the maximum setback requirement from being met, and that 5 it would take more than six hundred linear feet of expansion to comply, the maximum setback 6 requirement was modified. This proposal is also located within Design District D, which 7 includes a minimum design standards that are to be met and if those standards can't be met, the 8 applicant must demonstrate how the intent of the Code must be met. 9 From Staff's perspective, there are many aesthetic elements provided, as I just 10 mentioned, which are part of a modest expansion to a relatively large structure and the applicant 11 is obviously operating with constraints due to the siting of the existing facility so in conclusion, 12 Staff found the building to be well-designed with proposed pedestrian, landscaping, and 13 infrastructure improvements. We found that the proposal enhanced the building's existing 14 appearance as well as the site's functionality and the reviewing official, the City's Hearing 15 Examiner, concurred with Staff recommendation and found that while the applicant's proposal 16 doesn't comply with the prescriptive standards of the Design District, it does comply with the 17 intent therefore satisfying the design district requirements. And that's all, unless you have any 18 questions of me. 19 BRIERE: Questions? Mr. .wicker? Mr. Parker:' 20 MALE VOICES: No. 21 BRIER)✓; All right. Thank you very much, Rocale. All right, next if 22 we could hear from the appellant 23 NEWMAN: Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My PAGE 3 I name is Claudia Newman and I'm the attorney for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and 2 thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate it. I'll try to brief. What I am 3 going — I have been told that you have reviewed the materials and I'm just doing a quick 4 summary of what you've seen. The reason we have appealed this Wal-Mart expansion is that it 5 is an expansion of — an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. It's a violation of the 6 maximum setback requirement and there are many violations of the design regulations. And 7 there are also improper estimates of the traffic generation of the proposal_ And I want to start 8 just focused on the non -conforming issue because that's the most straightforward and I think 9 pretty dramatic issue here that I was very surprised to see an approval because I think it is rather 10 clear cut that this is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. RMC 4-10-050 states that a 11 non -conforming structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming. And so 12 the Renton. Code states that you cannot expand your non -conforming structure unless it will 13 bring it into conformance. And there's no dispute here that the facility is being expanded. The 14 project will expand the existing Wal-Mart from approximately one hundred and thirty-four 15 thousand square feet to one hundred and fifty thousand square feet_ And the enlargement is not 16 conforming. The enlargement violates the maximum frontage setback requirement of fifteen feet 17 — that's in the Heariva Examiner's decision — he states that as such. And the proposal will be 18 setback approximately five hundred and fifty-five feet from the frontage which was defined as 19 Hardy Avenue and Rainier Avenue South. This is substantial legal error. This is clearly a 20 violation of the Code. There's also the violation just on its own of the maximum frontage 21 setback that justifies the denial. I have heard for the first time, I believe, the Staff's 22 recommendation based on the criteria that allows for an exception to the maximum setback. I 23 want to point out that that, as far as I can see, was not reviewed by the Examiner. The Examiner PAGE 4 I doesn't include that consideration in his opinion and so any exception to the front -back criteria — 2 this is new discussion that's happening here tonight. 3 The applicant and the Examiner's response to the arguments that I just made are that the 4 mere fact that the design regulations apply to this project somehow excuse the proposal from 5 having to follow the other provisions in the Code. For example, a non -conforming structure can 6 expand to be non -conforming if the design regulations apply — and this is an argument that has 7 absolutely no basis in the Code. And there is no credibility to this argument. There is nothing in 8 the Code that says that — the provision that they refer to states that alterations, enlargements and 9 restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050 — which is the non - 10 conforming provision --- must comply with, the design regulations. All it says is that they have to 11 comply. There is no place where they're excused from - the project - that it has to comply with 12 design regulations is excused from these other regulations. And also, I — you know — it's a . 13 really, really ironic argument, frankly, because I guess the point of it is saying, well, if we follow 14 design regulations and we're in sync with the design regulations, then we don't have to follow 15 setback requirements and we don't have to follow non-conforrnibg restrictions and what's ironic 16 about that is that Wal-Mart is not following the design regulations and the intent of the design 17 regulations are not being met by this project. In fact, this project is precisely the opposite of 18 what the City has envisioned for the future of this -area. 19 1 just want to read a little bit from the intent and goals of the design regulations. The 20 intent is to ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the 21 vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high-density urban environment so that 22 businesses enjoy visibility from ,public rights of way and to encourage pedestrian activity 23 throughout the district. To ensure visibility of businesses, establish active lively uses along PAGE 5 i I sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the 2 district is facilitated. To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, ensure 3 that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk in the urban character 4 of the district — so you can get the picture here — to encourage building design that is unique and 5 urban in character, comfortable on a human scale and uses appropriate building materials that are 6 suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate, to discourage franchise retail architecture — that's the 7 intent and you can start envision what we are talking about — a vibrant, walkable downtown area 8 that is pedestrian friendly, that's not oriented towards cars. And what we have here is franchise 9 architecture with an enormous parking lot in front of the store rather than having the building 10 right up within fifteen feet of the sidewalk. We have a car -oriented development that is clearly I I more focused on people driving to the store rather than walking to the store. So, generally it's an 12 ironic statement to say, well, you know the design regulations allow us to violate the other 13 regulations in the Code when they are not meeting the design regulations in the first place. 14 And I did give quite a bit of detail in the briefing about what design regulations are not 15 being met and I just want to quickly respond to the applicant and the Examiner's response to 16 those arguments. There is an argument that the design regulations allow flexibility and they 17 allow different approach to design to meet the end goal. And that is true -- it is prescriptive 19 requirement — I mean, well, rather than performance-based, we have a prescriptive — I'm sorry, 19 we have performance-based requirement rather than prescriptive and so there is allowing some 20 sort of — they have a regulation that's required and this is the intent and the goal, and what the 21 regulations say, essentially, is you can have some flexibility in how you get to that goal but you 22 have to meet the requirement And here the requirements just simply were not met. And so the 23 flexibility isn't this option, oh, we either can follow them or not follow them — we have choice — PAGE 6 1 the flexibility is, yes, you must follow these requirements but you may have some flexibility in 2 how to get there. And if you look at the briefing; if you look at the Bearing Examiner's decision 3 very closely, you see that they just didn't get there. They didn't get any compliance with the 4 design regulations. 5 Now, finally, with the standing issues and the exhaustion of administrative remedies, I 6 think that we've brought up some very strong issues on the merits and I think there is an attempt 7 to distract away from those by raising - challenging our ability to even raise those issues before 8 you and those attempts fail. The Renton Code is unambiguous in allowing any interested person 9 to appeal to the City Council. There is no requirement that that person have attended the public 10 hearing before the Examiner and the only reason the group did not attend the hearing is they 11 were not aware of the project until after the hearing occurred. The Washington State law — I 12 provided some case law in there that demonstrates this is true. There is a distinction between any 13 interested person versus a party to the proceeding being allowed and the Code clearly allows any 14 interested person. 15 The administrative record below does not have evidence in it about the appellants — us - 16 being aggrieved parties but that is not at issue whatsoever. On appeals, which I think most 17 attorneys recognize that when you are going up to a new court and you're filing an appellant 18 appeaL you have a right to submit evidence to show that you can get through the door to get the 19 jurisdiction of that appellate court. The information or evidence on whether or not we are an 20 aggrieved party was not even necessary before the Examiner because there is no time or 21 requirement for us submit evidence showing that we are in aggrieved party. The first time that 22 you have an need or requirement to submit evidence that you are an aggrieved party is before the 23 City Council and that's what we have done. We have submitted that adequate evidence to show. PAGE 7 I And finally, on exhaustion, Wal-Mart argued that we had not exhausted our 2 administrative remedies because we had not attended the hearing. As I have said before, that is 3 not a requirement of the Code and also, exhaustion of administrative remedies is a judicial 4 doctrine that's created by the Washington State Superior Courts and that is a requirement that 5 before going to court, the appellant must go through the process that is set forth in the City Code 5 and that's what we are doing right now. So we are in the process of exhausting our 7 administrative remedies. We also did raise the issues before the Examiner. The idea of 8 exhaustion is not necessary procedural; there is a Washington State court case that makes it clear 9 that this is a substantive doctrine which what I mean by that is you need to have raised the issues 10 below, not necessarily attended all the hearings and so we did raise all of the issues to the 11 Hearings Examiner that we are raising to the City Council and therefore we exhausted our 12 remedies. Thank you. 13 BRIERS: Thank you. All right, next the applicant. 14 McCLZLOUGH: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the 15 committee. We had a longer presentation but I have been advised that it might be nice to keep it r 16 brisk this afternoon so I'm going to do so. 17 BRIERE: All right. Could you just stat your name for the record? 18 McCULLOLGH: My name for the record is Jack McCullough. My address 19 is 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220, Seattle, 98144. 20 BRIERS: And you're representing the Wal-Mart? 21 McCULLOUGH: And I'm representing Wal-Mart. And we were here in 22 front of the City about seventeen years ago when first getting approval for the existing store out 23 there and happy to see now after this" period of time that we are able to bring, we hope, a better PAGE 8 1 store design, architecture, store layout to the City. 2 There are really three issues — you are all familiar with the site and the record and have 3 read, I know, all the pleadings here — there are three issues before you: traffic, design review, 4 and the issue of the setback. I'm going to address those. Obviously, as the Council knows, you 5 have to apply the standard of review that is set forth in the Code and that is a substantial error in 6 law or fact exists or that — for legal issues — for factual issues, that there is substantial evidence in 7 the record to support the fact-finding that's below. So on traffic, counsel didn't spend time 8 addressing traffic in the opening statement but it is well, I think, addressed in the brief. 9 Obviously, the City — ERC — issued an environmental determination on this project, imposed 10 conditions as associated with the payment of impact fees on traffic which is intended under City 11 Code to fully mitigate the traffic impacts. Appellants did not appear in that proceeding, didn't 12 provide comments, didn't appear in the proceedings below and suggests now that the Council 13 should reverse this action on the basis of what's called known — in quotes — information about 14 traffic from this project. Well, you have to loom at the record. We've asked you to strike or 15 disregard the information on page 14 of the opening brief of the appellants that tries to insert this 16 extra record evidence now into the Council proceeding, it doesn't belong there. The record 17 supports the findings of the Hearing Examiner and we think that the decision on that issue should 18 be upheld. 19 On the designn issue, we just have a fundamental disagreement here. You know, the Code 20 — or the comp plan, I think, is clear. The City's land use policies are clear about dealing with 21 non -conforming issues and large issues, the community design policies and the land use policies 22 of the Code that design should be flexible and the approach to dealing with non -conforming 23 structures and uses should be flexible to try to achieve a higher degree of conformity and ,PAGE 9 I compliance as projects move forward. So, you know, I think what it boils down to in the context 2 of the design issue is one particular provision of the Code, which is not addressed by the 3 appellants but is addressed by us in our pleadings, and that is Section 4-8-100(g)(b)(2), the 4 design regulations — it says when the administrator or designee has determined that the proposed S manner of meeting the design requirements through the guidelines, an intent is sufficient. The 6 applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the 7 guideline that has been approved. And it goes on in the following section to describe the purpose 8 of this is to encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purpose of the design 9 regulation. So these are really — it's intended to be a living and flexible document and the 10 suggestion you've heard from appellants is that there is a prescriptive standard. You have to 11 meet the standard and then once you meet the standard you can be flexible. Well, that doesn't 12 rally make any sense. The Staff did what the Staff has always done under the design guidelines 13 since they've been enforced in Renton. They. applied them flexibly in this case and the Hearing 14 Examiner's decision supports that 15 Finally, there is the issue of this setback. I think there are two ways to look at this. 16 Under either way, it's — the project complies. One is as suggested by Staff this afternoon, that 17 you can look at the Code at Section 4-2-120�c)(15) and there is a process for applying criteria 18 that would allow the expansion of the maximum setback and those criteria would apply in this 19 case. The other which was employed by the Hearing Examiner is to look at the Urban Design 20 Overlay regulations which were intended to implement the policies established in the 21 Comprehensive flan. Now, what the appellants are saying here, again, is it's — you have an 22 inflexible set of regulations. You have to meet this standard with a non -conform structure. 23 Well, actually, if you look at the Urban Design Overlay regulations, they are expressly intended PAGE 10 I to apply -to non -conforming structures and they are expressly intended to apply to big -box retail — 2 that's under 4-3-100(b)(1). And what appellants in their presentation to the Council, in their 3 pleadings presented to the Council, have failed to note is the clear language of Section 4-3- 4 100(b)(2), on which the Examiner relied, which said that where there are conflicts between the design regulations of these overlay guidelines and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, 6 which obviously includes the setback requirements, then the regulations of this section — i.e. the 7 design decision made by the Staff and upheld by the Hearing Examiner — shall prevail. So that 8 design decision in cases of dealing with non -conforming structures or big -box retail provides the 9 Staff and the Examiner an avenue by which modification to the standards can be made and the 10 expansion of non -conforming structures like this one can occur. So, it's just provision that is 1 i simply not addressed in the pleadings before that are presented by appellants and it's the one that 12 the Examiner relied on. Either that or the provision that Staff has mentioned here will support 13 that. So we think that, under the standards that you have to apply, the decision of the Examiner 14 on the site plan should be upheld. Thank you very much. 15 BRIERS: All right. Thank you. Questions? 16 ZWICKER: Ilhmmm.... 17 BRIERE: Questions, Mr. Zwicker? 18 WARREN[?]: Is that a no from King? 19 PARKER: I'm thinking 20 BRIERS: He's thinking so if you would like to go ahead — 21 WARREN[?]: No, I was going to close the appeal, so I'll wait. 22 PARKER[?]: The traffic issue -- so we collect traffic mitigation fees — 23 BRIERE_ Are you asking this of Staff? PAGE 11 I PARKER[?]: I know, yes, 1, am. Okay, Rich — (inaudible) — 2 TIMMONS: Rocale Timmons for the record, Planning Division — 3 PARKER[?]: Okay. 4 TLNIN40NS: Traffic impact fees or mitigation fees were require as part 5 of the environmental review determination of non-significance. If that was your question that 5 you were asking. 7 PARKER[?]: Okay, so we collect a fee and then we say, hey, it's okay 8 because we've looked it over and (inaudible) — 9 TLMMONS: Based on the number of trips that generated by the 10 proposed expansion. 11 PARKER.[?]: And how do we make that determination? I mean, how 12 (inaudible) - 13 T1ONS: They provide a traffic analysis and maybe Kayren Kittrick 14 — I'm not sure if she is in — in the 15 PARKER[?]: She's nodding her head yes lb BRIERE: She is, yes. 17 TIkvLMONS: But she — our development services division and IS transportation division reviews that analysis and then concurs or asks for supplemental 19 information and obviously it was concurred with. 20 PARKER[?]: So, okay, so otherwise the expanded building (inaudible) 21 and they anticipate that there will be that many more traffic trips and we figure that out and give 22 'them a charge for it? 23 TIMMONS: Correct. PAGE 12 I i PARKER[.?]: And then it's a-ok? 2 i TB84ONS: Correct_ 3 PARKER[?]: So we went through the appropriate process for that? 4 TEVIMONS: Correct. I PARKER[?]: Okay. Just on general purposes, I — the setback issue is 6 confusing to say the least, in my estimation. however, I — 7 BRIERE Are you asking a question? 8 PARKER[?]: No, yeah, I'm asking — no I'm not — I'm making a 9 statement, alright? 10 BRIERE: Okay. 11 PARKER[?]: Never mind. 12 BRIERS: All right. 13 PARKER[?]: I'm not going to make any more statements. 14 BRIERE: Do you have any more — 15 WARREN[?]: Ask any more questions — 16 BRIERE: Do you have any more questions? 17 WARREN[?]: Do you have any more questions? 18 PARKER[?]: No more questions. 19 BRIERS: All richt. 20 WARREN[?]: Madam Chairman, I move the appeal be closed 21 PARKER[?]: Second. 22 BRIERS: Okay, the appeal is closed and we'll deliberate. 23 WARREN[?]: Now make your statements. I PAGE 13 I BRIERE: Now you can make your statements. 2 PARKER[?]: Now I can say anything you want? 3 WARREN[?]: Now you can say whatever you want. 4 ZWICKER: Well, Mx. (inaudible) — you'd better not say anything 5 (inaudible) — 6 PARKER: These attorneys they always gang up on me for some 7 reason or another. S ZWICKER: One on one is gang, isn't it? 9 BRIERE: Well, you understand that the setback is an existing issue. 10 PARKER: That's right — I mean, it's there. 11 BRIERE: Right. The only way they could get by that would be to 12 tear the building down and redevelop - 13 PARKER: Right. 14 BRIERS: - the entire parcel. 15 PARKER: Yeah, quite frankly which isn't even reasonable in 16 estimation. I think they have given us a satisfactory explanation of how that's interlinked with 17 the design guidelines in order to make that happen. That's all I have. I don't have any problems. 18 WARREN: M.T. Zwicker? 19 ZWICKER: No, I'm good. The Hearing Examiner's decision is fine. 20 BRIERE: All right. 21 PARKER: I'd uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision. 22 BRIERE: All right and I will too. All right. So our recommendation 23 is we're going to be making a motion — or that we'll have a committee report that appears -- PAGE 14 I upholds the Hearing Examiner's decision and that will come forward to the City Council at 2 Monday's night meeting for their consideration. Okay? Thank you. Thanks to everyone. 3 [TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: END OF PROCEEDNG] 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PAGE 15 (t 8� CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF RENTON M E M 0 R A N D UM AUG 172012 DATE: August 16, 2012 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO: Rocale Timmons, CED FROM: Jo Olson, Administrative Asst. City Attorney Office SUBJECT: Renton Neighbors/Wa I mart Rocale — I am sending all your files and original documents back to you that pertain to the above mentioned case. Our department is closing our file and placing it into closed files at this time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either Mr. Newsom or myself. Thanks Jo s PARTIES OF RECORD WALMART EXPANSION Jeff Chambers y PACLAND 1505 Westlake Avenue N Ste: #305 Seattle, WA 98109 tel: (206) 522-9510 eml: jchambers@pacland.com (contact) Sharon Aiibade V Assistant Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Anapogi Toleafoa I.C.S. Loader Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Traffaney Black %. Department Manager - Electronics Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Mark Goodman V Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 tel: (425) 227-0407 (party of record) Nancy Chase 11 Department Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Updated: 04/15/10 LUA10-009, -H, ECF Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family, LLC 10047 Main Street Ste: #509 Bellevue, WA 98004 tel: (425) 453-1414 (owner / applicant) Huy Tran %/ Assistant Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Sophorn Chan Associate Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Brandi Hansen v Department Manager - Automotive Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Tomasita Quinsay I (party of record) William B. Carey, Jr. / Safety Team Lead Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Jeremy Smith ✓ Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 tel; (425) 227-0407 eml: jksmith,s02516.us@wal- mart.com (party of record) Luena Layapox (party of record) Tilesa L. Swehla ✓ Department Manager - Foods Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Sierra Schavrien I.C.S. Associate Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Tauasi Paaga v Human Resources Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Francis Canapi Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (Page 1 of 2) - PARTIES OF RECORD WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Cheryl Harrelson ✓ Benjamin Gonsalves Josh Smith Walmart Department Manager - 743 Rainier Avenue S Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Walmart (party of record) 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Levan Josie Merveus `� Abram Sparrow V Department Manager Department Manager Department Manager Walmart Walmart Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Aevnue S 743 Rainier Avenue Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Valerie Reyes ;J Jose O. Martinez Irish Joy E. Layador 1 I.C.S. Lead Supervisor - 2nd Shift Entertainment Zone Merchandise Walmart Supervisor 743 Rainier Avenue S (party of record) Walmart Renton, WA 98057 743 Rainier Avenue S (party of record) Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 2 of 2) 'z7 cia Mae _ - - .._ HUI9NIHSYM 'AI Hfq� 9N1>t 'k71N 33S r ; a lLi �POL) Zvi = Mral �r.ii: �.l"" .. —... - S jAV 2i 31 N1b >! 3 OA3WS ONYI V SL'33H1`IN.i Lhoea°�' �Nf `SJhiIH�11H a3Ot1 'H5f3f3 _ ��0-9L�Z#=�JO-l- �.HW IbM q n Q _O fi �I Il Lr 1 s LL- LL " ]nV � `>1 3 n 1 -1. V Hs / cr� t ---------� -,11111}s -gin I I 1 f I i I 1 l 1 II I ; I I P T s ��VIAV �IJIV r--------------- --- .------r --r ---------� -,11111}s -gin I I 1 f I i I 1 l 1 II I ; I I l T � 1 1 1 -=Z H l 1 1 i _� r--------------- --- .------r --r ---------� -,11111}s -gin I I 1 f I i I 1 l 1 II I ; I I 1 _ 1 1 I 3 � 1 1 1 ! I i.l..I l 1 1 i _� I I 1 Q V 1 1 I , 1 n n I AV 5 1 l V 1s V 3 1 Nis ! g i. --------L.-----.------- "','1l V aH uy�s ' nc'd @ on En i a 0 CV a_ co Z 0 a CL as WLO }7F V °C LU O V �61 ilk I O 6 i CL d co Q CL tr (L U) uj 3: O Q N � 0 ➢gm�f u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i u x 8 19 A 519 LL ilk I O 6 i CL d co Q CL tr (L U) uj 3: O Q N � 0 ➢gm�f u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i x 8 O 6 i CL d co Q CL tr (L U) uj 3: O Q N � 0 ➢gm�f u�;l'3 - �i.? '4: 'Ni h.G'il�Si Y]NtlIS'14N1rN�\ucsntlxi c,; ; wN iz�r�Nls.�ablwi:AX\w,h'�4soN\ i 3 u o - LO 1 a I � LL- 3 s a co Ue i T f1 a 01 0.1 �gE�q 3r d ..... LL 14 9 aR }} -- I -pit n_ I- t = " L� �e �� � �a. }� age I� C�a! ��"• =z'9n *j h,W'uei,! S�ol�nul �e:11WMKY2A�i vrvwh] N. A' wV,w„�M,ra�.{�1.:„ny\uo16u,:6M\�� CL U r wit9.e Cc ��,� � � �e�� � �= ���e� � � 2�p6 �� a��a$yo•�k y^��L. a A"" __ � �� � � �� s�� F 6#GG EYP _Y _ i F 6E fl4g��'3�3p i � ypyF � Y � Z ftA EYP µ C 2 �6� 6 4 �� 5 P A 4 � S 32 d GS Y krH J LI��L�IJLJ o- �M3 3fiN3AV 30WH Od IAF Ont s �'` Pit I� � _MU. d �r 5 pp CCC777i1I Ii c 'Al 4r C7) o � cs} r No q3 Fk ry� I I� iDC s e_ Cote @.,Il :;GCC C'89Gg•9 y. q o- �M3 3fiN3AV 30WH Od IAF Ont s �'` Pit I� � _MU. d 1 a ' CCC777i1I Ii c 4r C7) o � cs} r Wjc I I� } ZZZ4 1 a ' CCC777i1I .. } I I� } ZZZ4 �. 1 TL 11 z O U) z rr OL �X b I w fI1 '�'d[L r -']IOL tl iCr 6.v YJIIGNk(1PIN�W5 Nxpy uol� r15 B�-LL-01GL1uv�nl•57nwvy�2•t"'r'°�'7 'xi i "r pwt\auuE\wlwtllwlku.WTA'•. �5 w a y MS a -90A 71�_ y o 1 Pik CO W V o ry ` 3 8 77 __ zm w� f _ E - 1 fK� � •4 � Sate. `J f 9IL 0 _ '_ ♦i Mw t1 r e i s w y o 1 CO W V o ry J LLI 3 8 zm w� x .a Q; Oi . '' A.tl 6.P l0iiH7t4��'JttrEiN(2�m�caa]'Af 8 s�Y .rtntl.sa;x A',w�x�f�ic.EquNM�S f _ fK� � •4 � Sate. s ' t1 Q; Oi . '' A.tl 6.P l0iiH7t4��'JttrEiN(2�m�caa]'Af 8 s�Y .rtntl.sa;x A',w�x�f�ic.EquNM�S Lr) N 0 4-J Ln c 0 Q) Nr ow LM m ci a 1 CC i; V � 222 cc TM l " L E H I� 0 LU R m Ori r Q IN Mi omr 0 m cc�, » a 5¥ & 2 ®§ � |} ® � §k 2 �| $§ cc�, 25 _ � � � � � ;/ }f I :� : � t y� lld�eMA 1.� IQ - C) 0- 1� Ol �) N - MVA 'MUNAN x\ N� \1 X FTI a�� v n i m m m � � 4 o U ■ a��•ti. � r 4: 3 MES41 W' Y' • � {{ss Y FTI a�� v n i m m m � � 4 o U 0 3 r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 The Honorable Brian D. Gain SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY } GROWTH, } Petitioner, j V. } } PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.; ) BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER ) BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON ) Respondents. ) No. 10-2-31728-7 KNT FINAL ORDER AND RJDCMENT w€ --..J s This matter came before this Court on February 11, 2011 on a Land Use Petition filed by Petitioner pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW, challenging the land use decision of the City of Renton approving the site plan for Wal -Mart's proposed remodel and expansion of a retail store. The Court heard the arguments of counsel, read the pleadings filed in this matter, reviewed the administrative record of the proceedings prepared and certified to the Court by the City of Renton, and reviewed the Hearing Examiner's decision, affirmed by the City Council_ The Court hereby finds and concludes: FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT - 1 nwr 16560615v10031150 -0002N 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 • 1) The City of Renton acted within its authority in approving the site plan and Petitioner failed to establish that the City of Renton engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process in malting the land use decision, or that such error is not harmless. 2) The land use decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. 3) The City of Renton properly interpreted and applied its code requirements in approving the proposed site plan, and the land use decision is not an erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts. The Petitioner has failed to satisfy the standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a)-(d) and is therefore not entitled to relief Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the City's land use decision is upheld, and Petitioner's Land Use Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. DATED this 7—F day of February, 2011. Presented by. DAVIS WRIGHT TRElAAlNE, LLP Attoi no I WSBA No. 15491 FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT - 2 DWT 1656D615v1 0031150-OODM I Lawrence J. Warren Renton City Attorney 2 3 / By:d�.,r%li--*t- Y'^� Zf l7�rr te%-Irc% !v Garmon Newsom II 4 WSBA No. 31418 Attorneys for Respondent City of Renton 5 6 Approved as to form; notice of presentation waived: 7 BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP $ By: •••--� 9 t1faudia M. Newman WSBA No. 24928 10 Attorneys for Petitioner Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FINAL ORDER AND RIDGMENT - 3 DWT 16560615x1 0031150-000288 r] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH, Appellant, ►FA PACLAND; JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E.; BONNELL FAMILY, LLC; PETER BONNELL; CITY OF RENTON, Respondents, WAL-MART STORES, INC., Intervenor. NO, 66874-9-1 DIVISION ONE UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: May 14, 2012 LAu, J. —Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. proposes to expand its Renton store by 16,000 square feet. The existing store was built before the current zoning regulations were enacted and is nonconforming in some respects. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth (RNHG) opposes the expansion, claiming that (1) it illegally expands a nonconforming use and (2) it fails to comply with the city of Renton's design regulations. The hearing examiner approved Wal -Mart's proposal with several conditions, and the city council affirmed. RNHG appeals the hearing examiner's decision to approve the expansion under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW. Because (1) the 0 66874-9-1/2 E hearing examiner's interpretation of the relevant code provisions is reasonable, (2) the hearing examiner's unchallenged findings are supported by substantial evidence, and (3) RNHG demonstrates no clear error in the hearing examiner's application of the law to the facts, we affirm. FACTS Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. retained PACLAND to provide civil engineering services for a proposed store expansion in the city of Renton (City). In 2019, PACLAND filed an application with the City for site plan review of a proposal to expand Wal -Mart's existing 134,352 square -foot store by approximately 16,000 square feet. The project would also reduce Wal -Mart's garden center by 4,000 square feet and add 127 parking stalls. The Wal-Mart property was zoned "commercial arterial" and "medium industrial."' an February 22, 2010, the City accepted PACLAND's application for review. The City's Environmental Review Committee reviewed the project application and issued a "Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated," including six mitigation measures, for the Wal-Mart expansion. No appeals of this determination were filed. The City's Department of Community and Economic Development issued a preliminary report to the hearing examiner. The report indicated that Wal -Mart's proposal was "not compliant" with several city code provisions but recommended the City approve the expansion subject to several conditions. The hearing examiner held a public hearing for A majority of the site was zoned "commercial arterial," with a small area on the western part of the site designated "medium industrial." "For the purposes of the Site Plan Review the tCommercial Arterial] standards were used to review the proposal." -2- i 66874-9-1/3 E Wal -Mart's site plan application. The City received no public opposition to the project .2 The hearing examiner made extensive findings based on the preliminary report and the hearing testimony. He adopted most of the analysis in the preliminary report and approved Wal -Mart's expansion proposal subject to eleven conditions. RNHG failed to submit any comment letters and did not attend the hearing because it was not aware of the proposal at that time. RNHG fled a request for reconsideration, arguing that the project violated several Renton Municipal Code (RMC) requirements and illegally expanded a nonconforming use. The hearing examiner denied RNHG's request, concluding there was "no reason to alter the original decision nor the conditions attached to that decision." RNHG also appealed the hearing examiner's decision to the Renton city council. After a hearing, the city council's planning and development committee voted to uphold the hearing examiner's decision and recommended that the full city council do the same. The city council adopted the Committee's recommendation and affirmed the hearing examiner's decision. RNHG filed a land use petition with the superior court under LUPA. Wal-Mart intervened in the action and moved to dismiss for lack of standing.3 The trial court denied the motion, ruling that RNHG met the RCW 36.70C.060(2) requirements for standing. But the trial court denied RNHG's land use petition on the merits, ruling (1) the City acted within its authority in approving Wal -Mart's site plan, (2) substantial 2 To the contrary, the City received several letters and a petition with numerous signatures indicating community support for the project - 3 The respondents initially named in the petition were PACLAND and its contact Jeff Chambers, the property owner Peter Bonnell and Bonnell Family, LLC, and the City. In this opinion we refer to Wal-Mart and the City collectively as "respondents." -3- E 66874-9-114 0 evidence supported the decision, (3) the City properly interpreted and applied its code requirements in approving the site plan, and (4) the land use decision was not an erroneous interpretation of the law or a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts. The court concluded, "[RNHG] has failed to satisfy the standards of RCW 36.70C.130(1)(a)-(d) and is therefore not entitled to relief." RNHG appeals. ANALYSIS Standard of Review LUPA is the exclusive means of obtaining judicial review of land use decisions, with certain exceptions not applicable here. Friends of Cedar Park Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 156 Wn. App. 633, 640, 234 P.3d 214 (2010). We review the decision of the "local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals." RCW 36.700.020(2). Thus, when reviewing a LUPA decision, we stand in the shoes of the superior court, reviewing the ruling below on the administrative record. HJS_Dev. Inc. v. Pierce County ex rel._Dep't_of Planning & Land Servs., 148 Wn.2d 451, 468, 61 P.3d 1141 (2003). Here, because the City Council adopted the hearing examiner's findings of fact and conclusions of law, we review the hearing examiner's decision. See RMC 4-8-100(K)(2) ("Unless otherwise specified, the City Council shall be presumed to have adopted the Examiner's findings and conclusions.") Under LUPA, a court may grant relief only if the party seeking relief has carried the burden of establishing that one of the standards set forth in RCW 36.70C.130(1) is met. RNHG cites four standards in its appellate brief: -4- 0 66874-9-115 to (a) The body or officer that made the land use decision engaged in unlawful procedure or failed to follow a prescribed process, unless the error was harmless-, (b) The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise; (c) The land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court-, (d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts .... Appellant's Br. at 7 (quoting RCW 36.70C. 1 30(l)). Subsections (a) and (b) are questions of law that we review de novo. Phoenix Dev., Inc, v. City of Woodinville, 171 Wn.2d 820, 828, 256 P.3d 1150 (2011). "When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under subsection (c), we view facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the highest forum exercising fact-finding authority," in this case the City and Wal-Mart. Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn-2d at 828 -29 - This process "`necessarily entails acceptance of the fact finder's views regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given reasonable but competing inferences.'" City of Univ. Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn.2d 640, 652, 30 P -3d 453 (2001) (quoting State ex rel- Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. County of Pierce, 65 Wn. App. 614, 618, 829 P.2d 217 (1992)). Under the substantial evidence standard, there must be sufficient evidence to "persuade a reasonable person that the declared premise is true." Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829. We do not weigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for the reviewing official's judgment. Phoenix Dev-, 171 Wn.2d at 832. Under subsection (d), the application of the law to the facts is clearly erroneous—and thus reversible ---only if we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829; Milestone Homes. Inc. v. City of Bonney Lake, 145 Wn. APP. 118, 126, 186 P. 3d 357 (2008)- -5- UN Standinq The respondents contend RNHG tacks standing because it failed to attend the public Hearing and thus failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. RNHG argues that attendance at the hearing was not required and it otherwise exhausted all administrative remedies required under the RMC. Outside the Declaratory Judgments Act, standing is an issue that must be raised in the trial court .4 Amal amated Transit Union Local 587 v_ State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 203- 04 n.4, 11 P.3d 762, 27 P.3d 608 (2000); see also Baker v. Teachers Ins. & Annuities Ass'n Coll. Ret. Equity Funds, 91 Wn.2d 482, 484, 588 P.2d 1164 (1979) (where issue of standing was not submitted to trial court, it could not be considered on appeal)_ Here, 4 Some of our cases erroneously refer to standing as "jurisdictional" and allow it to be raised for the first time on appeal. But article IV, section 6 of the Washington Constitution does not exclude any causes from the broad jurisdiction of superior courts, meaning Washington courts have few constraints on their jurisdiction. Krieschel v. Bd. of Snohomish County Comm'rs, 12 Wash. 428, 439, 41 P. 186 (1895); Philip A_ Talmadge, Understanding the Limits of Power Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems, 22 Seattle U. L. Rev. 695, 708-09 (1999). Thus, if a defendant waives the defense that the plaintiff lacks standing, Washington courts can reach the merits. Talmadge at 718-19; Tyler Pipe Indus., Inc. v. Dept of Revenue, 105 Wn.2d 318, 327, 715 P_2d 123 (1986) ("if the issue of standing is not submitted to the trial court, it may not be considered on appeal.") vacated on other rounds, 483 U.S. 232, 107 S_ Ct_ 2810, 97 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1987). A recent decision from our Supreme Court, Knight t v_ City of Yelm_, 173 Wn.2d 325, 336, 267 P.3d 973 (2011), states that "[s]tanding is jurisdictional." But Knight refers back to Chelan County v. Nykrelm, 146 Wn.2d 904, 926, 52 P.3d 1 (2002), and Nvkriem (putting "jurisdiction" in quotes) refers back to Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 181, 4 P.3d 123 (2000), which does not use the word "jurisdiction" at all, but simply mentions the well- established rule that to invoke the superior court's appellate jurisdiction (i.e., jurisdiction the court already possesses), one must strictly comply with any procedural requirements the legislature has established_ This does not mean that the litigant's compliance vests the court with jurisdiction or that the litigant's lack of compliance divests the court of jurisdiction. Our Supreme Court has wamed against the type of casual and imprecise use of the term "jurisdiction" that occurs in Knight. See Marled De 't of Labor & Indus., 125 Wn.2d 533, 541, 886 P.2d 189 (1994). 0 66874-9-117 the respondents raised the issue below when they moved to dismiss for lack of standing, but the trial court concluded RNHG had standing and denied the motion. The respondents neither cross appealed that ruling nor assigned error to it on appeal. "Failure to cross-appeal an issue generally precludes its review on appeal-" Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wn_2d at 202. Review of the record also shows that the respondents raised the standing issue before the hearing examiner and the City Council. The respondents failed to cross appeal either of those decisions even though the hearing examiner and City Council reached the merits of RNHG's arguments and implicitly concluded RNHG had standing. See Caswell v. Pierce County, 99 Wn. App. 194, 197, 992 P.2d 534 (2000) (in LUPA case, when respondents "have not cross - appealed the hearing examiner's conclusion, and the superior court's concurrence" regarding certain issues, the appellate court will not address those issues). Here the respondents waived their standing argument by failing to cross appeal or assign error to the trial court's ruling on standing. "Vesting" The parties dispute which version of the RMC applies in our review.$ RNHG argues that Wal-Mart "vested to" the former version of the RMC that was in effect at the time the City accepted Wal -Mart's site plan review application for review in February 2010. Appellant's Reply Br. at 39. It argues that all review was based on application of 5 The RMC has been amended several times since the City accepted Wal -Mart's site plan review application in February 2010. Relevant to this opinion, several RMC provisions were amended in March 2010, after the City accepted review but before the hearing examiner made his decision. -7- 0 0 the former RMC6 and we should review the hearing examiner's decision under that version. Wal-Mart argues that a "site plan application does not trigger vesting," and thus, the former RMC provisions do not apply to our review. RespTs Br. at 18_ Washington's vested rights doctrine "entitles developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit application is filed ... _" Abbey Rd. Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wn.2d 242, 250, 218 P.3d 180 (2009). RCW 19.27.095(1) provides: A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in effect at the time of application, and the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of application_ We conclude the vested rights doctrine does not apply here. RNHG cites no authority applying the vested rights doctrine when determining which version of a local ordinance applies to a hearing examiner's decision on a site plan review application.' See Beal for Martinez v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 777 n.2, 954 P.2d 237 (1998) ("The City cites no authority for this proposition and, thus, it is not properly before us.") (citing RAP 10.3(a)(5); Schmidt v. Cornerstone lnvs.-Inc., 115 Wn.2d 148, 166, 795 6 For clarity, we refer to the RMC provisions in effect in February 2010 as the "former RMC" and to the amended RMC provisions in effect at the time the hearing examiner made his decision simply as the "RMC_" Even if we were asked to decide whether Wal -Mart's development rights "vested," they did not in this case. In Abbey Road, our Supreme Court made clear that absent a local vesting ordinance specifying an earlier vesting date, development rights vest only upon filing a complete building permit application and do not vest merely upon filing a site plan review permit application. Abbey Rd., 167 Wn.2d at 252-61. Here Wal- Mart filed a site plan review application, not a complete building permit application. The RMC mirrors state law on vesting and establishes no earlier vesting date. See RMC 4- 8-060(B). Thus Wal -Mart's application does not confer vested development rights. 91 0 0 66874-9-1/9 P.2d 1143 (1990)). The issue here is which version of the RMC applies to our review of the hearing examiner's decision, not whether Wal-Mart had vested development rights by virtue of its site plan review application. We stand in the shoes of the superior court, reviewing the hearing examiner's ruling below on the administrative record. HJS Dev., 148 Wn.2d at 468. The City amended portions of its urban design regulations in March 2010, before the hearing examiner heard this case. The amended version thus applied to the hearing examiner's original decision on May 13, 2010, and his reconsideration on June 10. We apply the amended RMC in effect when the examiner made his decision. See Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 834-36 (in reviewing City's denial of rezone application, court applied version of Woodinville Municipal Code in effect when City made its decision); Woods v. Kittitas Coun , 162 Wn.2d 597, 617-25, 174 P.3d 25 (2007) (in reviewing county board of commissioners' approval of rezone application, court applied version of Kittitas County Code in effect when Board made its decision); City of Medina v. T -Mobile USA, Inc_, 123 Wn. App. 19, 29-33, 95 P.3d 377 (2004) (in reviewing hearing examiner's approval of a variance application, court applied version of Medina Municipal Code in effect when examiner made his decision). RNHG argues that because the table incorporated into the hearing examiner's decision "parallels the version of RMC 4-3-100 that [was in effect at the time Wal-Mart applied for its site plan approval]," the hearing examiner reviewed Wal -Mart's proposal under that former version rather than the amended version that he should have used. Appellant's Reply Br. at 39. Thus, according to RNHG, "all review in this case was based upon the application of the previous version of the lawn and we should use the 91 ! 0 66874-9-1110 former version. Appellant's Reply Br. at 38. But RNHG failed to raise this argument in its request for reconsideration, its notice of appeal or briefing to the city council, or during the appeal hearing before the city council in August 2010_ RNHG cited the amended version of the RMC—particularly portions of RMC 4-3-100(A), which it now argues are inapplicable -----in its opening and reply briefs in its appeal to the city council. Those briefs were filed well after the hearing examiner ruled on RNHG's request for reconsideration. RNHG thus had sufficient time to raise the issue before the city council and failed to do so. RNHG also failed to raise the issue in its LUPA petition or its trial brief, despite citing the former version of the RMC. RNHG raised its argument for the first time in its reply brief in the superior court. But we review the hearing examiner's action, not the proceedings before the superior court, on the basis of the administrative record de novo. HJS Dev_, 148 Wn.2d at 468. In LUPA cases, we may refuse to consider arguments raised for the first time on review. RAP 2.5(a); First Pioneer Trading Co., Inc. v. Pierce County, 146 Wn. App. 606, 617 n.5, 191 P.3d 928 (2008). Here, RNHG did not challenge the version of the RMC applied before the hearing examiner or the city council and provides no explanation why the argument could not have been made earlier. Thus, RNHG did not put either the hearing examiner or the council on notice of its challenge to the version of the RMC applied. See Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 869, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) ("Our cases require issues to be first raised at the administrative level .. _ ."); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574, 113 P.3d 494 (2005) (trial court properly refused to allow LUPA petitioners to raise a new argument not raised or argued before the hearing -10- 0 66874-9-1111 examiner). Because RNHG failed to raise the issue of whether the hearing examiner applied an incorrect version of the RMC before either the hearing examiner or the city council, we decline to consider that challenge now_8 "Verities on Appeal" The parties also dispute whether the hearing examiner's findings are verities on appeal in this case. RNHG argues that under I_UPA, notice pleading is sufficient to challenge all the hearing examiner's findings and, furthermore, the hearing examiner made only "circumscribed findings based on other legal criteria, not those listed in RMC 4-2-120C(15)." Appellant's Reply Br. at 35. Wal-Mart contends that failure to assign error to a hearing examiner's findings of fact makes them verities on appeal. In City of Medina, we reviewed a hearing examiner's decision granting T -Mobile's request for a special use permit and three variances. City of Medina, 123 Wn. App. at 22. We concluded that "[Medina] does not appear to challenge any of the hearing examiner's findings in this case, so they are verities on appeal." City of Medina, 123 Wn. App_ at 29. Similarly, in United Development Corp. v. City. of Mill Creek, 106 Wn. App. 681, 684, 26 P.3d 943 (2001), we reviewed the city council's imposition of mitigation fees and other conditions on a subdivision. We concluded that "because [United Development Corporation] assigns no error to the findings of the City Council, 8 Even if we considered RNHG's argument, RNHG cites to nothing else in the hearing examiner's decision or elsewhere in the record that indicates which version of the code he applied, and on reconsideration, the hearing examiner cited the amended version, showing he reviewed his decision under the amended version. (Clerk's Papers (CP) at 77-78 (citing amended RMC 4-3-140(A)(2)). The hearing examiner concluded on reconsideration that the "[amended RMC] provisions cited above allow sufficient latitude to permit the proposed expansion as conditioned in the decision." Given our limited review, we are unable to conclude the hearing examiner applied an incorrect version of the law. -11- 0 66874-9-Il12 0 they are verities on appeal." United Dev., 106 Wn. App. at 688. See also Stuewe v. Dep't of Revenue, 98 Wn. App. 947, 950, 991 P.2d 634 (2000) (administrative finding of fact not assigned error is verity on appeal); Hilltop Terrace Homeowner's Ass'n v. Island County, 126 Wn.2d 22, 30, 891 P.2d 29 (1995) (same). This case is similar to City of Medina and United Development Corp. The hearing examiner made numerous findings of fact based on the administrative record before him. RNHG assigns error "to the King County Superior Court's Final Order and Judgment issued on February 22, 201 V Appellant's Br. at 2. RNHG assigns no error to the hearing examiner's findings and cites no authority for its argument that LUPA petitioners challenge all of the hearing examiner's findings when they petition via simple notice pleading. See First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Liberty Capital Starpoint Equity for Fund, LLC, 161 Wn. App. 474, 486, 254 P.3d 835 (2011) (declining to consider an inadequately briefed argument). The hearing examiner's findings are verities on appeal. Substantial evidence supports the findings as discussed below_ Merits of Hearina Examiner's Decision RNHG argues that the hearing examiner's decision should be overturned because (1) Wal -Mart's proposal violates the City's design regulations applicable to district D under RMC 4-3-100 and (2) the proposal is an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use under RMC 4-10-050. We address the design regulations issue first because it affects both arguments. -12- 66874-9-1113 Design Requlations9 RMC 4-3-100's design regulations apply to development within certain designated design districts, including design district D where Wal-Mart is located. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b), (3). The design regulations list elements that are required for development in the applicable design districts. Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). The standards "specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met," while the guidelines and intent statement "provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards." RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). The design regulations mandate that the hearing examiner shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations_ In rendering a decision, the [hearing examiner] will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). If the examiner determines "that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved."'0 RMC 4-3-100(A)(2)(b)_ "Where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shalt prevail_" RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). y As discussed above, we apply the amended design regulations in effect when the hearing examiner made his decision. '° This provision does not appear in the former RMC. RNHG argues that the hearing examiner erred when he cited this provision in his decision on reconsideration. We addressed that argument above. -13- 66874-9-1114 RNHG first argues that the standards set forth in the design regulations are mandatory and the hearing examiner erred in permitting Wal-Mart to meet the intent and guidelines rather than the specific standards. For this proposition, it cites to the former RMC provisions, which provided that the minimum standards "must be met." Former RMC 4-3-100(A)(8). As discussed above, the RMC was amended in March 2010 before the hearing examiner made his decision. The amendments removed the "must be met" language. As quoted above, the amended version of the RMC applicable at the time the hearing examiner decided this case did not require an applicant "to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved" as long as the applicant satisfied the intent and guidelines associated with the design requirement. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2)(b). "'It is a well established rule of statutory construction that considerable judicial deference should be given to the construction of an ordinance by those officials charged with its enforcement.'" Citizens for a Safe Neighborhood v. City of Seattle, 67 Wn_ App. 436, 440, 836 P.2d 235 (1992) (quoting Mall, Inc. v. Seattle, 108 Wn.2d 369, 377, 739 P.2d 668 (1987)); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. City of Seattle, 107 Wn. App. 42, 57, 25 P.3d 1022 (2001). Our Supreme Court has explained the reasons for this rule of deference: "The primary foundation and rationale for this rule is that considerable judicial deference should be accorded to the special expertise of administrative agencies. Such expertise is often a valuable aid in interpreting and applying an ambiguous statute in harmony with the policies and goals the legislature sought to achieve by its enactment. At times, administrative interpretation of a statute may approach 'lawmaking,' but we have heretofore recognized that it is an appropriate function for administrative agencies to 'fill in the gaps' where necessary to the effectuation of a general statutory scheme. It is likewise valid for an administrative agency to 'fill in the gaps' via statutory construction—as long as the agency does not purport to `amend' the statute." -14- 66874-9-1115 Mall, 108 Wn.2d at 378 (quoting Hama Hama Co- v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 85 Wn.2d 441, 448, 536 P.2d 157 (1975)) (internal citations omitted). Given the hearing examiner's authority to "consider proposals on the basis of individual merit," "consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines," and "encourage creative design alternatives," we decline to disturb the hearing examiner's interpretation of the RMC. RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). The hearing examiner did not err in considering whether Wal-Mart met the intent and guidelines associated with the design regulations despite not meeting the applicable standards. The examiner concluded on reconsideration that the RMC 4-3-100(A) and (D) provisions cited above "allow sufficient latitude to permit the proposed expansion as conditioned in the decision." RNHG fails to show that "[t]he land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise." RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b). RNHG next argues that the Wal-Mart proposal violates several design regulation standards_ Specifically, RNHG contends that the proposal fails to conform to standards governing parking areas, tree planting, and building architectural design." See Appellant's Opening Br. at 25-27. To the extent RNHG contends these standards are mandatory and the hearing examiner erred in concluding otherwise, our discussion above resolves this contention. To the extent RNHG contends that insufficient evidence supports the hearing examiner's findings on these matters, 12 the findings are verities on 11 RNHG does not raise or brief any other specific objections to the proposal's compliance with the design regulations. 12 RNHG does not specifically make an insufficiency of the evidence:" argument and thus we need not consider it on appeal. See First Am., 161 Wn. App. at 486 -15- 66874-9-1116 appeal as discussed above. Even if we review the findings—viewing the facts and inferences most favorably to the City and Wal -Mark as the prevailing parties below— substantial evidence supports them under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c) and the findings support the hearing examiner's conclusions. The hearing examiner heard testimony at the public hearing regarding code compliance and deviations necessitated by the site layout and existing structure. Various meeting attendees testified that the proposal would meet the design regulations' intent and guidelines even if certain standards were not met. City staff prepared a detailed report and recommended conditions to bring the proposal further in line with the intent and guidelines: The hearing examiner also considered public comment letters describing how the Wal-Mart expansion would improve the surrounding area and create jobs and advancement opportunities for employees. RNHG fails to demonstrate that "[t]he land use decision is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the whole record before the court" under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(c). Likewise, RNHG fails to satisfy its burden under RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) to demonstrate clear error in the hearing examiner's application of the design regulations to Wal -Mart's proposal. As discussed above, we defer to the hearing examiner's conclusion that the design regulations were not mandatory and that in the event a proposal fails to comply with standards, an applicant may demonstrate compliance with the intent and guidelines behind a particular regulation. Relevant to RNHG's challenges, RMC 4-3-100's design regulation intent statements include the intent to (declining to consider an inadequately briefed argument). Nevertheless, we address this prong of RCW 36.70C.130(1) for completeness. -16- 0 0 66874-9-1117 "maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings;" "provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings;" and "encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate and to discourage franchise retail architecture." RMC 4-3-100(E). The hearing examiner specifically addressed the noncompliance issue. He found that the site layout and existing conditions justified deviation from some standards given that the intent was met, and he imposed conditions to bring Wal-Mart further into compliance.' Given the design elements' flexibility, the hearing examiner's discretion in applying them, and the examiner's specific findings --unchallenged by RNHG and supported by substantial evidence in the record—RNHG fails to demonstrate any basis for reversing the examiner's decision for "clear error" --which is appropriate only if we are "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 829. Illegal Expansion of Nonconforming Structure RNHG argues that the hearing examiner's decision requires reversal because Wal-Mart proposed an illegal enlargement of a nonconforming structure under RMC 4-10-050_ Specifically, RNHG argues Wal -Mart's proposal (1) violates RMC 4-2-120(A)'s maximum front yard setback of 15 feet and (2) violates the City's 13 Among the hearing examiner's findings and conclusions are: "the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of landscaping„; "the applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest"; "the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot"; and "pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced." The hearing examiner's conditions required Wal-Mart to comply with guidelines regarding lighting, building fagade, landscaping, and other areas. -17- 66874-9-1118 design regulations. The respondents argue that the RMC allows the City to waive the 15 -foot maximum setback requirement. The parties agree that the existing Wal-Mart store is "nonconforming" within the meaning of RMC 4-10-050. RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) provides that nonconforming structures "shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a rebuild approval permit issued for it." RMC 4-2-120(A) imposes a 15 -foot maximum front yard setback requirement in the commercial arterial zone. Due to a large parking lot in front of the store, the existing Wal-Mart store's front entrance is approximately 555 feet from the relevant access roads (Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S). To comply with RMC 4-2-120(A)'s 15 -foot maximum setback requirement, Wal -Mart's expansion would need to extend approximately 540 feet across its existing parking area. The hearing examiner found: The [Commercial Arterial] Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hard[y]- Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards_ The hearing examiner concluded= The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hard[y]-Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback.... .... The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses .... -18- 66874-9-1/19 RNHG first argues that because (1) a portion of the hearing testimony referred to RMC provisions for "alterations" rather than "enlargements," and (2) "[t]here is no reference to or acknowledgment of RMC 4-10-050 by the Examiner in his conclusion," the hearing examiner and City staff misinterpreted the RMC's provisions regarding enlargement of nonconforming structures_ Appellant's Opening Br. at 15-16. The hearing examiner's decision shows that while the hearing examiner did not explicitly cite RMC 4-10-050, he considered this provision. The hearing examiner concluded that the existing store was nonconforming and that given the existing layout and site constraints, the expansion could not "be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet." The hearing examiner thus considered RMC 4-10-050(A)(4)'s requirement that nonconforming structures "shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming." Any reference to "alterations" rather than expansions in the hearing testimony is harmless given the hearing examiner's final decision, which considered Wal -Mart's proposal under the proper "expansion" analysis. RNHG next argues that the hearing examiner erred in concluding that the City's design regulations contained in RMC 4-3-100 supersede RMC provisions that prohibit expansion of nonconforming structures. The respondents contend that the expansion complies with the design regulations, which take precedence over any conflicting zoning requirements—including the 15 -foot maximum setback. In response to RNHG's request for reconsideration, the hearing examiner explained the relationship between RMC 4-3-100's design regulations and the other zoning provisions in the RMC: The Design District Regulations are `overlay' provisions [that] govern properties within their boundaries regardless of the underlying zoning and other zoning -19- 66874-9-1120 provisions. The overlay guidelines provide that projects be reviewed with an eye toward flexibility to forward the main thrust of the guidelines — to create better designed and integrated projects. The guidelines allow different or creative ways to achieve those principles. Further, the hearing examiner emphasized that (1) the design regulations' intent statements and guidelines "'provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards'" and (2) the reviewing official should 'encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations."' CP at 78 (quoting RMC 4-3-100(A)(2), (A)(2)(b)). The hearing examiner clarified for RN HG that the RMC 4-3-100's design regulations apply to la ]Iterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of nonconforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050'" as well as to 'Iblig box retail"' such as Wal-Mart. CP at 78 (quoting RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) and (b)). Thus, "not only is the redevelopment of non -conforming uses permitted under these [design] regulations but they, in the language of the code, 'shall be required to comply with the provisions of [the design regulations]."' CP at 78-79 (quoting RMC 4-3-1 00(13)(1)(a)). As discussed above, "[w]hen construing an ordinance, a 'reviewing court gives considerable deference to the construction of the challenged ordinance by those officials charged with its enforcement.'" Phoenix Dev., 171 Wn.2d at 830 (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. City of Seattle, 160 Wn.2d 32, 42, 156 P.3d 185 (2007)). At issue here is the proper interpretation of the .relationship between two RMC provisions: RMC 4-10-050(A) (nonconforming uses) and RMC 4-3-100 (design regulations). RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii) states that all big box retail development in the Commercial Arterial zone must comply with the design regulations_ And as discussed above, "[w)here there are conflicts between the design regulations of [RMC 4-3-100] and other -20- 66874-9-1121 sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the [design regulations] shall prevail. RMC 4-3- 100(6)(2). The hearing examiner interpreted the RMC to permit properties within the design regulation districts to be developed "in accordance with the guidelines rather than the more general regulations governing properties outside of a District governed by overlay regulations." Thus, Wal -Mart's proposal need only comply with the design regulations, not RMC 4-10-050(A)'s nonconforming use provisions_ Assuming a conflict existed between RMC 4-3-100's design regulations and RMC 4-10-050(A)'s provisions governing nonconforming uses, this is a reasonable interpretation given the conflicts language in RMC 4-3-100(8)(2). Because we defer to the City's determination of what the RMC requires, we conclude that the hearing examiner properly interpreted the RMC to allow Wal-Mart—in the event the two RMC provisions at issue conflict— to comply with the design regulations rather than the nonconforming use provisions. We next consider whether a conflict exists_ RNHG argues that the 15 -foot setback requirement and the design regulations do not conflict and therefore the design regulations do not supersede the 15 -foot setback. The respondents argue that the 15 - foot setback conflicts with the design regulations as applied by the hearing examiner. A conflict exists when it is "impossible to comply" with two separate directives. See Magnolia Neighborhood Planning Council v. City of Seattle, 155 Wn. App. 305, 318, 230 P.3d 190 (2010) (addressing conflicts standards in context of federal preemption); Lawson v. City of Pasco, 144 Wn. App. 203, 213-14, 181 P.3d 896 (2008) (applying the federal "impossible to comply" conflict test in deciding whether a state statute conflicted with a city ordinance)- -21- 66874-9-1122 In Baker v. Snohomish County Department of Planning & Communes Development, 68 Wn. App. 581, 841 P_2d 1321 (1992), we addressed a claim of conflict between the permitting requirements of a state regulatory agency and a county. We found it "impossible to demonstrate in the abstract that the provisions of [a state regulatory agency permit] and the provisions of the [county] land -use permit are in conflict" when both the state regulatory agency and the county have a large measure of discretion in fixing the terms of a permit. Baker, 68 Wn. App. at 591. "Where any conflict is hypothetical and dependent upon the precise manner in which two discretionary permits were crafted, it is inappropriate to find preemption by implication_ It is soon enough to find preemption when a conflict arises." Baker, 68 Wn. App_ at 591. Thus, we have acknowledged that agencies may need to exercise their discretion before we can determine whether a conflict exists. As discussed above, the design regulations confer considerable discretion on the hearing examiner. Applicable RMC 4-3-100 design regulation intent statements regarding building placement and design include the intent to "organize buildings for pedestrian use;" "ensure an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses;" "make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access;" "ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district;" "maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings;" and "provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings." RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)-(3). -22- 66874-9-1/23 Here the hearing examiner considered the required design elements and determined that a larger setback was appropriate because it allowed for better design. He concluded that "only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild" would meet the 15 -foot setback requirement and that Wal -Mart's proposed 16,000 square foot expansion "cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet." CP 1001, 1002. He determined, "The extensive setback ... helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses." He also determined that "[t]aking advantage of the building's existing placement ... help[s] achieve a reasonable proposal." Other relevant conclusions include that "[Wal-Mart] has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot;" "[p]edestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts;" and "pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced." The hearing examiner characterized his decision as a "tradeoff ... allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback." Thus, the hearing examiner exercised h.is discretion in finding that Wal -Mart's proposal, while not compliant with several design regulation standards, met the intent and guidelines of the design regulations. Upon exercising this discretion, the 15 -foot setback was impossible to achieve. We conclude that a conflict exists between RMC 4-3-100 design regulations and RMC provisions that prohibit expansion of nonconforming uses. The hearing examiner properly applied RMC 4-3-100 rather than RMC 4-10-050. 64911 r 66874-9-1124 RNHG also argues that in addition to violating the 15 -foot setback requirement, Wal -Mart's proposal violates the design regulations pertaining to building and parking structures. This claim fails for the reasons discussed above. Attorney Fees Wal-Mart and the City seek attorney fees on appeal as the prevailing parties under RCW 4.84.370. The prevailing party on appeal of a land use decision is entitled to its attorney fees if that party's decision also prevailed before the administrative agency and in the superior court. RCW 4.84.370(1); Friends of Cedar Park 156 Wn. App. at 654-55. As the prevailing parties, the City and Wal-Mart are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees on appeal subject to compliance with RAP 18.1. CONCLUSION RNHG fails to demonstrate that the hearing examiner misconstrued the city code or misapplied the law to the facts. Because RNHG has not met its burden of showing it is entitled to relief from the hearing examiner's decision under the LUPA, we affirm. WE CONCUR: -24- • RICHARD D. JOHNSON, Court AdminLmator/Clerk May 14, 2012 Clayton Paul Graham Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1201 3rd Ave Ste 2200 Seattle, WA, 98101-3045 claytongraham@dwt.com Claudia Macintosh Newman Bricklin & Newman, LLP 1001 4th Ave Ste 3303 Seattle, WA, 98154-1167 newman@bnd-law.com CASE #: 66874-9-1 11 The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington Seattle Charles Edward Maduell Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1201 3rd Ave Ste 2200 Seattle, WA, 98101-3045 chuckmadueil@dwt.com Garmon Newsom, II City of Renton 100 S 2nd St PO Box 626 Renton, WA, 98057-0626 gnewsom@rentonwa.gov DIVISION I One Union Square 600 University Street 9810)-4)70 (206)464-7750 TDD: (206) 587-5545 Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, App- v. Pacland, et al., Res. King County, Cause No- 10-2-31728-7 KNT Counsel: Enclosed is a copy of the opinion filed in the above -referenced appeal which states in part: "Affirmed." Counsel may file a motion for reconsideration within 20 days of filing this opinion pursuant to RAP 12.4(b)- If counsel does not wish to file a motion for reconsideration but does wish to seek review by the Supreme Court, RAP 13.4(a) provides that if no motion for reconsideration is made, a petition for review must be fled in this court within 30 days. The Supreme Court has determined that a filing fee of $200 is required. In accordance with RAP 14.4(a), a claim for costs by the prevailing party must be supported by a cost bill filed and served within ten days after the filing of this opinion, or claim for costs will be deemed waived. Should counsel desire the opinion to be published by the Reporter of Decisions, a motion to publish should be served and filed within 20 days of the date of fling the opinion, as provided by RAP 12.3 (e). Sincerely, Richard D. Johnson Court Administrator/Clerk twg Enclosure c: The Honorable Brian D. Gain R 7 Denis Law Mayor August 17, 2010 Renton Neighbors for Health Growth. c/o Cindy Wheeler 425 SW 5th PI. Renton, WA 98057 r City of ; rO City Clerk - Bonnie I.Walton Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan; LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF 743 Rainier Ave. S. Dear Ms. Wheeler: At the regular Council meeting of August 16, 2010, the Renton City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee affirming the decision of the Hearing Examiner. A copy of the approved Committee report is enclosed. For additional information or assistance, contact City Clerk Bonnie Walton. Sincerely, a. a") Jason A. Seth Deputy City Clerk Enclosure cc: Mayor Denis Law Council President Don Persson Neil Watts, Development Services Director Parties of Record (26) 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 0 . AIPPROVED BY PLANNING $e DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Da 4L&L/0 August 16, 2010 Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Appeal I_UA-10-009 SA -H, ECF (Referred July 12, 2010) The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full Council find that the Hearing Examiner committed no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be affirmed. Terri Briere, C air { King Parker, Vice -Chair Rich Zwicker, '4 lz occd L l,r ✓�P�yr��i s rMcCullough 40jeff 4P Osagie Jack Chambers USunobun McCullough & Hill PACLAND Larry D. Craighead Architects 701 5th Avenue, Ste. 7220 1505 Westland Ave N., Ste. 305 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98109 Dallas, TX 75202 Peter Bonnell Jeremy Smith, Manager Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Mgr. Bonnell Family LLC Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 10047 Main Street, Ste. 509 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst. Mgr Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Associate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept. Manager William Carey, Jr., Safety Team Francis Canapi Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan Dept. Manager Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr. Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr. Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. ndShift 2 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. Claudia M. Newman Walmart #2516 Bricklin & Newman, LLP 743 Rainier Ave S 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98154 August 16, 2010 i Renton City Council Minutes * Page 254 Finding 14 should be amended to read. "The tree inventory showed 101 significant trees on the subject site. Code requires the retention of 25 trees whereas the applicant proposes retaining 24 trees. The replacement ratio is six (6) trees for each one removed that should have been retained. Six new trees would be planted mainly in the open space corridors." ♦ Finding 16 should be amended by adding a sentence that reads: 'The revised plan submitted with the request for reconsideration would move this open space area to the western portion of Lot 12, adjacent to lots in the Geneva Court Plat." ♦ Finding 29 should be renumbered as Finding 19, and should be amended to read: "The revised plan submitted with the request for reconsideration substantially reduced the wall to approximately 6 - 8 feet in height and moved the location of the wall away from the Geneva Court property lines." i Conclusion 1 should be amended to read: "The Wilson Park Preliminary Plat with Lot 12 designed as proposed in the Applicant's request for reconsideration appears to serve the public use and interest." ♦ Conclusion 2 should be amended by substituting the word "twelve" for the word "eleven" when referring to the number of lots in the preliminary plat. ♦ Conclusion 5 should be stricken in its entirety. ♦ The Recommendation section should be altered by changing the introductory sentence to read: "The City Council should approve a TWELVE LOT plat of the subject site subject to the following conditions:" ♦ Recommendation 3 should be amended by substituting the following language for the first sentence thereof: "A Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) should be recorded over the western portion of proposed Lot 12, as shown in the revised plan submitted with the request for reconsideration, and Tracks B, C and D." The remainder of Recommendation 3 should remain as drafted. ♦ Recommendation 5 should be amended to read: "The applicant shall establish a Homeowners' Association for the maintenance of the NGPE and the stormwater vault and each home shall have an undivided interest in the western retaining wall and the retaining walls associated with the road. The appropriate documents shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division project manager prior to the recording of the final plat." MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. Appeal: Wal-Mart Expansion Planning and Development Committee Chair Briere presented a report Site Plan, Renton Neighbors i recommending that the full Council find that the Hearing Examiner committed for Healthy Growth, 5A-10-009 . no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be affirmed. MOVED BY BRIERE, SECONDED BY ZWICKER, COUNCIL CONCUR IN THE COMMITTEE REPORT. CARRIED. 0 APPROVED BY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT Date -_48/L/ znl ? August 16, 2010 Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Appeal LUA-10-009 SA -H, ECF (Referred July 12, 2010) The Planning & Development Committee recommends that the full Council find that the Hearing Examiner committed no errors of fact or law in this matter and that his decision be affirmed. Terri Briere, C air King Parker, Vice -Chair �L�3P ��rl2C��t 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1s 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO. LUA 10-009 CITY CF RENTON JUL 2 9 2010 CITY CLERKS OFFICE l/la /eyal mess-- ' /a , SO Pfanni'n1 4n -Devcl opmm[ Comffidtee� (3) APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF L� I_► ! li�� �]7iI�C��►I Petitioner Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth's ("RNHG") filed an appeal of the fHearing Examiner's approval of the site plan application submitted by PacLand to construct an additional 16,000 square feet to an existing Wal-Mart store in the City of Renton ("Project"). I Although it had ample opportunity to do so, RNHG failed to comment and appear in the Project I approval process until after the opportunities for public comment had been closed. For example, I RNHG failed to submit comments during the Project's SEPA process. RNHG failed to appeal the I SEPA determination. RNHG failed to comment during the site plan approval process. RNHG I failed to appear at the site plan approval hearing. Instead, after the close of the public process, I RNHG filed a motion for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, which the Hearing Examiner properly denied. RNHG followed with this appeal to the City Council. As with its I motion for reconsideration, RNHG's appeal to the City Council is baseless and without support APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page I of 17 MCCUI3AUGH HILL. P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 from the facts or the municipal code. The appeal fails to meet the requisite appeal criteria. The City Council must deny RNHG's untimely and baseless appeal. H. STATEMENT OF ISSUES A. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG has failed to meet its burden of proof in this appeal? B. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when the record contains no evidence of RNHG's standing required to appeal to the City Council, and RNHG therefore lacks standing in this matter? C. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG's failure to participate in the hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust its administrative remedies and RNHG's arguments should be considered waived? D. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG failed to appeal the SEPA determination and is therefore barred from raising SEPA issues such as traffic? E. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues was in error? F. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG is improperly attempting to introduce new evidence into the record, which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-8- 110.F.5? G. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the record lacks any support of RNHG's allegations regarding design review, but instead supports the fact that the Examiner correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project? H. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Project complies with the design guidelines regarding site design and building location, which trump specific setback requirements? I. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Renton Municipal Code specifically allows the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of "nonconforming" structures through the design review process? APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 2 of 17 McCuLLOUGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 n CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 9 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S FILE NO. LUA 10-009 RESPONSE BRIEF I, Jessica Clawson, Declare: 1. 1 am an attorney with McCullough Hill, P.S., which represents the applicant in this appeal. 1 am competent to testify and make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. 2. Attached as Exhibit I to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Staff Report submitted at the public hearing for the site plan approval - 3. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued by the City of Renton for the Wal-Mart project. Project Number 3009833. 4. Attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart site plan approval. DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 1 of 2 McCULLOUGH HILL. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104-7042 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 5. Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision on reconsideration denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. 6. Attached as Exhibit 5 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the applicant's response to RNHG's request for reconsideration. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. f 4, DATED at Seattle, Washington, this day of July, 2010. Jesse a lawson DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 2 of 2 McCULLOUGH HILL. PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104-7042 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 CITY OF RENTON JUL 2 9 2010 CITY CLERKS OFFICE BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILE NO. LUA 10-009 1, JESSICA CLAWSON, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am an attorney with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for PacLand, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused the copies of the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via e- mail and messenger service on: CLAUDIA NEWMAN BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP 1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3303 SEATTLE, WA 98154 I // FIA CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 1 of 2 LAW AL-MART1Rentan%Qty C•oundl appea1WwHcate of SeNce0l .Uoc McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 And by e-mail and U.S. Mail on: LARRY WARREN RENTON CITY ATTORNEY P.Q. Bax 626 RENTON, WA 98057 DATED t day of July, 2010, at Seattle, Washington. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2 UWAL-MARTRanim%City Council appeaRGeMfieshe of Senrice0l.doc n SSICA AWSON McCullough Hill, PS 701 .Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.8123388 206.812.3389 fax BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO. LUA 10-009 CITY 0,- NTON CITY CLQ KIS OFFICE Via le yal mess-_ i APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth's ("RNHG") filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's approval of the site plan application submitted by PacLand to construct an additional 16,000 square feet to an existing Wal-Mart store in the City of Renton ("Project"). Although it had ample opportunity to do so, RNHG failed to comment and appear in the Project approval process until after the opportunities for public comment had been closed. For example, RNHG failed to submit comments during the Project's SEPA process. RNHG failed to appeal the SEPA determination. RNHG failed to comment during the site plan approval process. RNHG failed to appear at the site plan approval hearing. Instead, after the close of the public process, RNHG filed a motion for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner, which the Hearing Examiner properly denied. RNHG followed with this appeal to the City Council. As with its motion for reconsideration, RNHG's appeal to the City Council is baseless and without support McCULLoum HILL. P.S. Page I of 17 APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Page Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206,812,3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 from the facts or the municipal code. The appeal fails to meet the requisite appeal criteria. The City Council must deny RNHG's untimely and baseless appeal. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES A. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG has failed to meet its burden of proof in this appeal? B. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when the record contains no evidence of RNHG's standing required to appeal to the City Council, and RNHG therefore lacks standing in this matter? C. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG's failure to participate in the hearing constitutes a failure to exhaust its administrative remedies and RNHG's arguments should be considered waived? D. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG failed to appeal the SEPA determination and is therefore barred from raising SEPA issues such as traffic? E. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues was in error? F. Should the City Council deny RNHG's appeal when RNHG is improperly attempting to introduce new evidence into the record, which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-5- 110.F.5? G. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the record lacks any support of RNHG's allegations regarding design review, but instead supports the fact that the Examiner correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project? H. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Project complies with the design guidelines regarding site design and building location, which trump specific setback requirements? 1. Should the City deny RNHG's appeal when the Renton Municipal Code specifically allows the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of "nonconforming" structures through the design review process? APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 2 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 2 An application for site plan review was filed for the Project on February 8, 2010. 3 The Project would add 16,000 square feet to the existing Wal-Mart store located at 743 Rainier 4 5 Avenue South. Clawson Declaration, Ex. 1 (Staff Report). The Project would also reduce the 6 existing Garden Center by 4,000 square feet and would add 127 parking stalls. Id. The Project 7 site is located within the Commercial Arterial zone, and is within Urban Design District `D'. The s Project would not alter existing access points. Id. 9 The Project required environmental review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy 10 11 Act ("SEPA"). In the City of Renton ("City"), environmental review is conducted separately and 12 prior to site plan review by the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC"). The 13 environmental review includes review of the traffic impacts of the Project, and imposition of 14 mitigation related to those impacts. To review the traffic impacts, the ERC requested that the 15 lb applicant submit a Transportation Impact Study ("TIS") to determine, among other things, the 17 number of trips that are expected to be generated by the Project. Clawson Decl., Ex. 2 (MDNS). 18 The City's Development Services Division reviewed the TIS submitted by the applicant and 19 approved it. The ERC reviewed the TIS, including the trip generation information, and 20 21 determined that to mitigate the number of trips generated, the Project would need to pay an 22 estimated $45,600 in transportation impact fees. These fees are considered to fully mitigate the 23 transportation impacts from the Project. Id. 24 Following its environmental review, the ERC issued a Mitigated Determination of 25 Nonsignficance ("MDNS") on March 25, 2010, which imposed the $46,500 transportation impact 26 27 fee. RNHG did not continent on the MDNS, which was properly noticed. The MDNS is an 28McCuLwuGH HILL, P.S. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 3 of 17 701 Fifth ..venue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 r • I appealable decision; if there had been an appeal, it would have been heard by the Hearing Examiner in a public hearing consolidated with the site plan hearing. RMC 4-9-110.E. The MDNS appeal deadline was April 16, 2010. RNHG did not appeal the MDNS. The unappealed MDNS became final on April 17, 2010. On April 27, 2010, the Hearing Examiner held the required public hearing for the site plan application. Clawson Decl., Ex. 3 (Hearing Examiner Decision). No continent letters were received by RNHG. RNHG did not appear at the hearing. In fact, no opposition from the public was received by the City regarding the Project. Ex. 3 (See Finding 5). Instead, staff entered into the hearing record several letters in support of the Project, and a petition that demonstrated community support for the Project. Id. After reviewing all of the evidence in the record, the Hearing Examiner approved the Project on May 13, 2010. Clawson Decl., Ex. 3. After its long silence, RNHG finally surfaced, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner on May 27, 2010. Clawson Decl. Ex 4 (Hearing Examiner Decision on Reconsideration). Wal-Mart filed a response to the Motion on June 4, 2010. Clawson Decl. Ex. 5 (Applicant's Response to Reconsideration). After weighing the arguments and reviewing the evidence before hin-t, the Examiner properly denied RNHG's motion for reconsideration. Clawson Decl. Ex. 4. RNHG then appealed the Hearing Examiner's initial decision to the City Council. IV. ARGUMENT A. Standard of Review and Limitations on Council's Authority. Renton Municipal Code ("RMC") 4-8-140.F limits the authority of the City Council in this quasi-judicial appeal hearing. The City Council is limited to reviewing the record that was APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 4 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL. P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i reviewed by the Examiner, unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. RMC 4-8-100.F.5. Otherwise, the City Council must presume that the "record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner." Id. The RMC also provides a substantial burden ofproof that the appellant must overcome in order to overturn the Examiner's decision. In order to overturn the Examiner's decision., the appellant must overcome its burden to show that a "substantial error in law or fact exists in the record." RMC 4-8-100-F.8. The burden ofproof to prove such a substantial error lies with the appellant, and any material findings "shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record." RMC 4-8-100.F.9. Substantial evidence is "a sufficient quantity of evidence to persuade a fair- minded person of the truth or correctness" of the decision. Schofield, supra, 96 Wn. App. 581, 980 P.2d at 280. RNHG fails both to acknowledge and to meet his burden of proof in this matter. The City Council must reject this appeal. B. RNHG lacks the standing required to appeal this matter; its appeal must be denied. The RMC requires an appellant to have standing in order to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council. RMC 4-8-100.F.1 limits standing to "any interested Party aggrieved". However, as stated above, the City Council is required to limit its review of the appeal to the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. RNHG failed to submit any comment letters and failed to appear at the hearing. As a result, the record before the Hearing Examiner lacks any evidence that RNHG was "aggrieved." Thus, the record lacks any evidence that RNHG was APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 5 of 17 MCCuLLOUGH HILL. P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 0 0 aggrieved, and lacks any evidence that RNHG has standing. The City Council must deny RNHG's appeal, as RNHG lacks standing to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision. C. RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing, and failed to appeal the MDNS. It therefore failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and its arguments must be considered waived. As stated above, RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing. It also failed to appeal the City's MDNS. RNHG's absence in the administrative review process for the Project constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It also constitutes a waiver of its arguments now raised here. A party may waive its right to argue issues when it fails to appeal a matter, or fails to raise an argument at the proper time. Peste v. Mason County, 133 Wn. App. 456, 468-469, 136 P.3d 140 (2006); Had RNHG participated in the public hearing before the Examiner, or appealed the MDNS, it could have raised these arguments at the proper time, and the Hearing Examiner would have considered them at the public hearing. Instead, RNHG has chosen to raise its arguments to the City Council, a body without fact-finding authority. These arguments have been raised too late. They must be considered to be waived, and RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. D. RNHG failed to appeal the MDNS and it is therefore barred from raising issues related to traffic, which was reviewed under the MDNS. For unexplained reasons, RNHG failed to appeal the City's MDNS, which reviewed the Project's traffic impacts and imposed traffic impact fees to mitigate the Project's traffic impacts, even though RNHG now seeks to complain to the City Council about traffic issues relating to the Project. Because it failed to timely appeal the MDNS, which reviewed the Project's traffic impacts and determined they were not significant, RNHG is now attempting to raise issues related APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 6 of 17 MCCuu,ou H HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 0 0 to traffic through its site pian appeal. The RMC specifically prohibits such an appeal. The City Council must deny RNHG's appeal. The Project applicant submitted a Transportation Impact Study ("TIS") which reviewed the Project's trip generation and other transportation impacts. The TIS was approved by the City's Development Services Division as supporting the estimate for 608 additional trips being generated by the Project. Following review of the TIS, the City's Environmental Review Committee ("ERC") determined that the trip generation was appropriate, and that the appropriate mitigation for the Project's transportation impacts was the payment of a Transportation Mitigation Fee estimated at $45,600. Ex. 2, p. 5. The ERC incorporated this mitigation fee as a condition of the MDNS, which was issued on March 25, 2010. The appeal deadline for the MDNS, which addressed traffic issues, was April 16, 2010. Ex. 2, p. 1. RNHG failed to comment on the MDNS. It failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG cannot now attempt to appeal traffic issues, which were reviewed only by the MDNS, as its appeal is untimely. RMC 4-8-100.E.4.a ("Appeals of a final environmental determination under the Renton environmental review regulations shall be filed within fourteen (14) days of publication of notice of such determination. "). 1 The City Council must deny RNHG's appeal regarding traffic issues, as these issues should have been addressed in an appeal of the MDNS. RNHG failed to file such an appeal, and these issues must be rejected. I Even if RNHG had filed a timely appeal of the MDNS (which it did not), it nevertheless lacked standing to file such an appeal, just as it lacks standing to file this appeal. The record contains no evidence of RNHG's standing regarding the MDNS or environmental issues. RMC 4-8-100.E.3. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 7 of 17 McCuLwuGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 E. The City Council must reject RNHG's improper attempt to introduce evidence into the record which is strictly prohibited by RMC 4-8-11O.F.5. In its opening brief, RNHG has improperly attempted to introduce new evidence into this proceeding by stating what its traffic person "would" testify about, if he or she were allowed to testify. RNHG Brief, p. 14. RMC strictly limits the City Council's review on appeal to the record that was before the Hearing Examiner. RMC 4-8-110.17.5 states: No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence or testimony shall be accepted by the City Council unless a showing is made by the party offering the evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner—In the absence ... of an order by the City Council authorizing new or additional evidence or testimony, it shall be presumed that no new or additional evidence or testimony has been accepted by the City Council, and that the record before the City Council is identical to the hearing record before the Hearing Examiner. The City Council must strike RNHG's attempt to introduce new evidence through its brief. First, RNHG did not even try to assert a reason as to why its traffic consultant was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing before the Examiner. In fact, it is due to RNHG's negligence that its asserted evidence was not heard by the Hearing Examiner—RNHG failed to participate in the Hearing Examiner hearing, despite the fact that it was a public hearing which was properly noticed. Second, even if RNHG could make a showing that its additional information was not reasonably available at the time of the Hearing Examiner hearing (which it cannot), the City Council would have to make a finding saying so, and would have to remand the matter to the Hearing Examiner for additional fact finding. Thus, RNHG's attempt to introduce new evidence through its brief is untimely and improper under the RMC. The inclusion of new evidence into the record must not be allowed. The City Council must reject RNHG's improper effort to introduce APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 8 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax I 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 27 28 0 0 I extra -record material in this closed -record proceeding. The additional RNHG material should be disregarded and stricken by the City Council. F. Even if RNHG could raise claims regarding traffic, they must be denied. RNHG is barred from raising claims regarding traffic, which was reviewed under the MDNS. However, even if RNHG could raise traffic issues, these issues must be denied for two reasons: first, there is no evidence in the record to support RNHG's claims. Second, all evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that RMC 4-9-200.E. Lf was met. RNHG's claims must be denied. RMC 4-9-200.E.1 outlines the general review criteria for both master plan and site plan I review. Criterion i f includes "safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation." RMC 4-9-200.E. IS The Hearing Examiner properly made findings and conclusions regarding criterion f. First, Finding 23 states the approximate trip generation rate, and states that the "ERC imposed a mitigated fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips." Ex. 1, p. 23. Second, Conclusion 1 states that "the proposed use satisfies [criterion f] and other particulars of the ordinance." Ex. 1, p. 16. Here, all substantial evidence in the record supports the Examiner's finding and conclusion I regarding traffic. RNHG has improperly attempted to insert new evidence into the existing record j simply because the record includes no evidence to support RNHG's claims regarding traffic. RNHG alleges that the Examiner's decision was incorrect because it allegedly "failed to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration." RNHG Brief, p. 14. RNHG challenges the Examiner's finding regarding traffic as an error of fact. In order to prove that the Examiner's finding was in error, RNHG must point to substantial evidence in the record supporting its claim. MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF 701 FifthAvenue, Suite 7220 Page 9 of 17 Seattle, WA 98144 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 E RMC 4-8-100.F.9. Not only does the record lack any evidence to support RNHG's claim, RNHG's allegations are patently false. RNHG cannot meet its burden here to challenge the Examiner's finding regarding traffic issues, as no evidence in the record exists to support its claims, despite its attempt to improperly bring extra -record evidence into this proceeding. RNHG's allegation regarding traffic issues was not only untimely, but it is also not supported by the record. It must be denied. G. The record lacks any support of RNHG's allegations regarding design review, and the Examiner correctly applied the design guidelines to the Project; the City Council must reject this claim. RNHG has alleged that the Project does not comply with the City's Design District `D' regulations. RNHG has misrepresented the code regarding the design guidelines, and its allegation is without factual or legal support. RNHG is unable to meet its burden of proof regarding this allegation, and it must be rejected. First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit any evidence into the hearing record that the Project does not comply with the staffs interpretation of the design guidelines. As noted, this is because RNHG failed to appear at the site plan review hearing before the Hearing Examiner. To overcome its burden of proof, RNHG must cite to substantial evidence in the record. RMC 4-8-100.F.9. It cannot do so here. The City Council must reject RNHG's claim, as it is without support of evidence in the record. Second, RNHG fails to address the intent of the design review guidelines, which are clearly consistent with the Examiner's application of the guidelines to the Project. The guidelines specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC 4-3-100.A.2. ("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 10 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL�P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0 0 provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines grant the decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and (contrary to RNHG's assertion) do not require strict compliance with the guidelines: When the Administrator... or designee has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. RMC 4-8-100.G.2.b. The guidelines grant the decisionmaker the authority to exercise further flexibility in applying the design review guidelines: The [decisionmaker] shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based on the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the [decisionmaker] will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternative s in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. RMC 4-3-100.D.2. RNHG conveniently fails to address these Code provisions in its appeal. The Examiner correctly applied RMC 4-3-100.D.2 by allowing some flexibility, and by requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a better -designed Project. See Clawson Deet. Ex. 1 (Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11). In particular, the Examiner required the following design elements to be included in the Project, to better meet the intent of the design guidelines: Required existing larger trees to be retained, in addition to adding landscaping islands in the parking lot; buffer parking areas from abutting properties with additional landscape buffers, including a 55 -foot wide perimeter landscaped area along Rainier Avenue, and a 20 -foot wide landscaped area along SW 7`h Street. Additional landscaping will exceed code requirements. (Ex. 1, pp. 9-10). • Require Project to submit revised elevations for northern fagade to create more visual interest (Ex. 1, p. 13). APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 11 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 J • Rather than propose windows along the eastern facade, which would not be feasible, Project shall extend parapets, include ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture, and large planter box to include human scale elements and pedestrian interest. The Project is required to provide additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area near the entryway which shall include additional glazing, artwork, or planting beds. (Ex. 1, p. 14) The Examiner further acknowledged that he was allowing flexibility in the application of design review standards: In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards. Ex. 1, p. 17. In sum, RNHG's allegations regarding design review are without merit. The intent of the design guidelines is to allow flexibility in design and to review a project on an individual basis, rather than requiring a strict standard. RMC 4-3-100.D.2; 4-3-100.G.2.b. RNHG has not cited to substantial evidence in the record proving its claim. Its claim must be rejected. H. The Hearing Examiner properly approved the Project in the proposed location. RNHG has asserted that the Project does not comply with the setback requirements of the CA zone. RNHG fails to understand that design guidelines trump the strict setback requirements of the CA zone, and allow expansions of existing buildings under the design guidelines. RNHG's claim must be rejected. As stated above, chapter RMC 4-3 includes a set of Urban Design Overlay regulations. These regulations are designed to "implement policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan." RMC 4-3-100.A.1. As APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 12 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 9 0 overlay regulations, they are applied independently of the other development regulations of the Code, which they supersede. These overlay regulations govern: a. Site design and building location; b. Parking and vehicular access; c. Pedestrian environment; d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space; e. Building Architectural Design; f. Signage; g. Lighting. RMC 4-3-100.A.I (emphasis added). As already stated, the application of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically: 2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the zones stated in subsection B 1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability, standards are provided. These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the r uired element in a manner that is different from the standards. b. When the [decisionmaker] has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. (emphasis added). RMC 4-5-100.G.2.b. Thus, the Examiner must review the proposed Project against the standards, guidelines, and intent statement of each design element, in order to I determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations. In addition, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically to both expansions of nonconforming structures, and Big Box Retail uses: B. APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS: APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 13 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 1. Applicability: a. The following development activities shall be required to comply with the provisions of this Section: i. All subdivisions including short plats; ii. All new structures; iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g., to parking or storage lots); iv. Conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use; v. Alterations enlargements and/or restorations ofnonconformin structures vursuant to RMC 4-1-050. b. Any of the activities listed in subsection B. La of this Section and occurring within the following overlay areas or zone shall be required to comply with the provisions of this section. Big box retail as outlined below shall also be r wired to comply with the revisions of this section. (emphasis added). RMC 4-3-100.B.1. Finally, the code specifically states that when a conflict exists between the Urban Design Overlay Regulations and the Renton Municipal Code, the design regulations shall govern: 2. Conflicts: Where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section, and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shallrp evail. (emphasis added) RMC 4-3-100.B.2. Thus, in summary, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations encourage the flexible application of design solutions to Project. The Urban Design Regulations apply to both Big Box retail, and to nonconforming structures. The Urban Design Regulations trump the Renton Municipal Code in the case of a conflict. Here, the Examiner properly applied the design regulations to the Project site regarding the setback issue. Conclusion No. 3 of the Examiner's decision acknowledges that the Project cannot be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within 15 feet of Rainier Avenue, which is what would be required under the CA zone's setback requirements. Ex. 1. Conclusion No. 4 notes that the significant building setback works to ease APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 14 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL. P.S. 701 Fifth -Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Wil 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 lax 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 27 28 the transition to neighboring uses. This conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which state that buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land uses," and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk, and scale." RMC 4-3-100.E.1. Both City staff and the Hearing Examiner properly determined that the Project will better meet these standards, as the Project is proposed. Thus, while the Project does not comply with the front setback standard set forth in the CA zone, the Hearing Examiner properly determined that the Project better meets the design regulations, due to the height bulk and scale of the building, with a larger setback and extensive landscaping, and therefore that the plan as proposed should be approved. Ex. 1, Conclusion 4. RNHG's allegation regarding the setback must be denied. In addition, the Hearing Examiner properly applied the Urban Design Overlay Regulations to the "nonconforming" structure. RNHG fails to read the code in its entirety regarding this issue; its claims must be denied. RNHG claims that RMC 4-10-050.A.4 prohibits the Project, as approved. RMC 4-10- 050.A.4 states: A. Nonconforming structures—general: Any legally established building or structure may remain, although such structure does not conform with the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, provided the following conditions are met: 4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged unless the enlargement is conforming... RNHG fails to understand that this code section does not apply to the Project. The Urban Design Overlay Regulations, as stated above, overlay and supersede the provisions of the Renton APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 15 of 17 MCCULLOUGH „HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 0 Municipal Code, including the nonconforming provisions. The Urban Design Overlay Regulations delegate to the Examiner the authority to approve expansions of nonconforming structures through the design review process. (See 4-3-1003.1: "The following development activities shall be required to comply with [the design regulations]: Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of nonconforming structures..."). The Urban Design Overlay Regulations supercede all conflicting sections of the Renton Municipal Code. See RMC 4-3-100.B.2. Thus, to the extent that the existing building could be considered to be "nonconforming," the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically authorize the Examiner to use the design review process to supersede the other provisions of the code, including RMC 4-10-050.A.4. Here, the City and the Examiner properly used the Design Review process to create a "conforming" Project. The City and the Examiner properly determined that while the Project, in some cases, did not precisely meet some of the standards, the Project "meets the guidelines and the minimum standards, and has justified why [the Project] may not precisely meet some of the standards." Ex. 1, Conclusion 10. In addition, the Examiner properly found that while the Project did not meet the CA zone's front setback standard, application of Design Regulations, which allow flexibility and supersede the CA zone standards, meet the code requirements as a whole. Ex. 1, Conclusion 3, Ex. 4. Thus, the Examiner has properly confirmed that the Project is not nonconforming, because it complies with the Design Regulations, which supersede the CA zone setback requirements. As such, RMC 4-10-050.A.4 does not apply to the Project, because compliance with the Design Review regulations make the Project conforming to the Renton Municipal Code. RNHG's appeal must be rejected. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF Page 16 of 17 MCCvLLOUGH HILL P.S. 701 Fifth Avcnue, Suite 7220 Seattle, W'. 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 V. CONCLUSION RNHG fails to meet its burden of showing that substantial evidence exists in the record to Iprove its claims. Because it failed to appeal the MDNS, and failed to participate in the public hearing, it has taken to improperly attempting to amend the record through uncited assertions regarding traffic issues in its brief. Not only is RNHG barred from raising traffic issues at this time, because it failed to appeal the MDNS, but it is also barred from inserting new evidence into the record when it could easily have participated in the public hearing. In addition, RNHG fails to correctly read the Renton Municipal Code regarding the Design Review overlay. As the Hearing Examiner properly found in both his initial decision, and his decision on reconsideration, the design review regulations allow flexibility in design, and supercede the underlying code. RNHG has failed to meet its burden here. The City Council must deny its appeal. DATED this day of July, 2010. 28 JIMPLICANT'SRESPONSEBMEF Page 17 of 17 MCCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. By: �)' I'& John . McCullough, WSBA #12740 Jessi M. Clawson, WSBA #36901 Attorneys for Applicant MCCuLLoum HILL. P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 r BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO. LUA 10-009 I, Jessica Clawson, Declare: 0,;ITY OF RENTCN JL'L 2 9 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF 1. I and an attorney with McCullough Hill, P.S., which represents the applicant in this appeal. I am competent to testify and make this declaration based on my personal knowledge. 2. Attached as Exhibit 1 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Staff Report submitted at the public hearing for the site plan approval. 3. Attached as Exhibit 2 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") issued by the City of Renton for the Wal-Mart project. Project Number 3009833. 4. Attached as Exhibit 3 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart site plan approval. DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 1 of 2 McCULLOUGH HILL, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104-7042 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 0 0 5. Attached as Exhibit 4 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision on reconsideration denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. 6. Attached as Exhibit 5 to this declaration is a true and correct copy of the applicant's response to RNHG's request for reconsideration. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED at Seattle, Washington, this day of July, 2010. Jess, a lawson DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF - Page 2 of 2 McCULLOUGH HILL, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 981047042 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING April 27, 2010 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME; Walmart Expansion PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area used for outdoor retail sales. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern and eastern facades. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface- parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales, HEX Agenda 4-27--10.doc IN b±m Hk SEN pip �� � H 0 ti � I }EL� aL_•.- .� W. ,w. -ti•ry •'♦ +; �- � }LOQ 111 j ;fit' ' � � "-a-d_ v,_•-�,. ., ti y -�'• �::;�� ;.vim:. � � �.s=- =` =k.• ��`'�=-'�=�-:�� •` L: i' � 1 - ° •.... r�: t= i•-. yW i� i�-. � � �[{g�. ".•�14'.} _ `•r�sn-��� °¢,i- �' 1L at. I --� �,,.•,.,-t��?i=i•�n_--- +'m14Y. 1 x' _F °Y i? •- � x};' 1 I i Ai RL I�N ri VT 3 `k W l 15t�r �� Ids^ 3 • � 1i+ O°Kx - b�0i Ss ry iw-q�axAsaR+�l'"s�3 a[ a w +r: ATM��w,�4w=?watta i low �G7 � C �4 Q gr W J aw i EU pip �� � H 0 ti � I }EL� aL_•.- .� W. ,w. -ti•ry •'♦ +; �- � }LOQ 111 j ;fit' ' � � "-a-d_ v,_•-�,. ., ti y -�'• �::;�� ;.vim:. � � �.s=- =` =k.• ��`'�=-'�=�-:�� •` L: i' � 1 - ° •.... r�: t= i•-. yW i� i�-. � � �[{g�. ".•�14'.} _ `•r�sn-��� °¢,i- �' 1L at. I --� �,,.•,.,-t��?i=i•�n_--- +'m14Y. 1 x' _F °Y i? •- � x};' 1 I i Ai RL I�N ri VT 3 `k W l 15t�r �� Ids^ 3 • � 1i+ O°Kx - b�0i Ss ry iw-q�axAsaR+�l'"s�3 a[ a w +r: ATM��w,�4w=?watta gl x � l Prig 1 e11 I . rr co a s B is 'd d $� gl x � l Prig 1 e11 I . rr co 1 �F 1 mix - nroz Yz wr bR'i1Q�va.�5q we t My gwd�A.,gmw�u\s } 1 �F 1 mix - nroz Yz wr bR'i1Q�va.�5q we t My gwd�A.,gmw�u\s 0 0 i ID go Ln a 5 0 0 A 1-0 H m x W 0 10 4 Q tj v Denis Law , �lty Of S �, Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Jeff Chambers, P.E. Pacland 1505 Westlake Avenue N #305 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD fSEPA) MEMERMINATION Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Chambers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 10155 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 17.0.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. if the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Renton City Hall 6 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 0 rentonwa.gov Jeff Chambers March 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roca] Timm Ass date Planner Enclosure cc: Peter Bonneli - Bunnell Family LLC / owner(s) C DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D th"ObZal AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ,ERG MEETING DATE: March 22, 2010 Project Name: Walmart Expansion Owner: Peter Bonnell; Bonneli Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004 Applicant/Contact: Jeff Chambers; Pacland; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109 File Number: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5 and 5 Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. Project Location: 743 Rainier Ave S Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac) STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map ERC Report - Walmart Expansion City of Renton Department of Community onomic Development Env ir ental Review Committee Report ' WALIVMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant, PACLAN©, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation_ In addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested. The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/SR 167 between SW 7th St and 5 Grady Way. A recently approved Short Plat (LUA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales, currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium industrial (IM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designations. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 74S surface parking stalls and a 4,701 square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from 515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be brought in for fill to be balanced onsite. Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/Sit 167. The proposed building would result in a lot Coverage of 25.3 percent. The tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet. The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7). There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical areas on or nearth e site. PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW I In compliance with RCW 43.2.10.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. ERC Report - WalmartExpansion City of'Renton Department of Communitoconomic Development EnvWenfof Review Committee Report WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 3 of 6 2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACIAND, dated February 5, 2010, during project construction. 3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. 4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. f. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Site Pian Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: North and South Elevations Exhibit 5: East and West Elevations Exhibit 6: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 7: Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site Is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site is located in a landscape area and is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from loose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500 cubic yards of haul -out. Following development impervious surface coverage will be approximately 89%. A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 l feet to 54 feet below existing site grades. The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation support, slab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. ERC Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Department of Community nomic Development Envirc&nta) Review Committee Report WALMART EXPANSION _ LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 4 of 6 Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4060; SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water a. Storm Water Impacts: The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND. (dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of 29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale. The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in impervious area would be 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 528,863 square feet. Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the existing storm system in SW 7th Street. As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0-035 cfs increase in the 100 -year peals flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements. Any offsite runoff that currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erosion control. In order to limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Nexus; King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Environmental Health a. Noise Irnpacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building FRC Report - Walmurt Expansion City of Renton Department of Comm unit*conomic Development EnVi0ental Review Committee Report WALMARTEXPAiVSiON LUA10-009, CCF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page S of 6 permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. In the event that cultural artifacts are found, work cannot recommence until approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations S. Transportation Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points along SW 71h St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR 167; and a full access point along SW Grady Way. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements would be required for the proposal. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new daily trips anticipated, has been estimated. at $45,600.00 (608 trips x 75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Fire & Police Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have indicated they have the ability to provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Department of Communitywonomic Development i:nvironmilol Review Committee Report WALMART EKPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 6 of 6 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." V Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report, Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 16, 2010. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these nates are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC 1s only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or uti I ity permit_ 2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Surface Water: 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Transportation: 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily trips was submitted. 2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction pian indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required.. 3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City hall sixth floor counter. ERC Report - Walmort Expansion.doc V F3 -18 T23N RSE W 112 qw i iM C4 sw m m s+aa I I 3 ! C4 -- _ Im Im S Wa 7t I CA I C-,, .. G4 r- ��'�' �4—I ILII arm cv co - - Flm' �F--J im l 1 SW t6T 4 ' SWIM. N- �7 € rn�a A cd ca\` sw zsp si - c s c0 w ' I a• li:l N !L EXHIBIT 1 1113 — 30 T23N R5E W 112 G3 0 20D 4W � 19 T23N R5E W 112 �Iri t cj_r� 1:4,800 = "__ SM9 ,YI I € I! 5 rM f V F3 -18 T23N RSE W 112 qw i iM C4 sw m m s+aa I I 3 ! C4 -- _ Im Im S Wa 7t I CA I C-,, .. G4 r- ��'�' �4—I ILII arm cv co - - Flm' �F--J im l 1 SW t6T 4 ' SWIM. N- �7 € rn�a A cd ca\` sw zsp si - c s c0 w ' I a• li:l N !L EXHIBIT 1 1113 — 30 T23N R5E W 112 G3 0 20D 4W � 19 T23N R5E W 112 �Iri t cj_r� 1:4,800 = "__ SM9 r= r• S0. Ems.. \dl�ulei+�e10t1,�dry E4 Ek M - ILC1,rc 1 1 ! i _ .. -fir--��•..�., a p ! 4'1 • 4 r tF-� r1l�h: miles . kK f �ooaE)8099®®ooa0e 0001ease 65 (D a"kBit i °'ax}a ��� ���k 19 �aa aha A l4 " ak s $ it it gig I 26 �$ NORqq gggg ° m =F: ss c k p s M M co 'apiL � 4 § � €� � i n �i � �" g FFkk. � � � Spy B � � t� �" � �Y �"p ispc�e g gill CD a4E44 e a e m OWN 7,11 Sp 7R ?•� �� �! H«r rx,! �� k �_ r !�� rlrr� x =!u.'"' =xr+lxix.. �. W ,c Ij?I ill: • nr� '�w,i'y� sA' lrsl��, � NC miles . kK f �ooaE)8099®®ooa0e 0001ease 65 (D a"kBit i °'ax}a ��� ���k 19 �aa aha A l4 " ak s $ it it gig I 26 �$ NORqq gggg ° m =F: ss c k p s M M co 'apiL � 4 § � €� � i n �i � �" g FFkk. � � � Spy B � � t� �" � �Y �"p ispc�e g gill CD a4E44 e a e m r'b ROW, 49� I r C"R OF 1I p1 jjAr.;:pVF .... j:g$rX-j N -9 a ;t 09 aji!EjE9 4 11 AqnmU I FM A.1-ifix g -111111i P 1414"'.1111141H pall 1xilg lip,% 110. Ix lix-IT!; 1 POP, ply; 1A FPR XX liar xm -8 ivjfiO4 jjF a 11Ng F i J'g'i gagg x Ix a R I C: L^J O O � a N c w C LL- �I�I Lu G N P W a i 0 w cr 10 tn vt O O 1 CD A LL7 L d l L m ;_;i F- 1-4 X x W 1 L': 29 i� 0 4 N OO b L N LL ri+ LN m Y, � a s O N d m - W fl fl J 1 L': 29 i� 0 4 N OO b L N LL ri+ LN m Y, AdIRL Denis Law �+ Mayor l X O Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 EXHIBIT 7 Usuno)jun Qsaigie . ' - Larry D. Craighead 211 N. Record St, Ste 222 Dallas, TK 75202 Subjeclt: Wairnart ExpansZon Modification Request 743 Rainier Ave S t=ile -No. L.UA10-009, SA -H, ECF Dear Mr: Maison: This letter is sent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the .City's Refuse and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location. 5utnma-ry of Request The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center, The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet'of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4;000 square feet in the Garden Center. - Che ,expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern- facade, with modifications along the eastern facade, The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion- of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part.of the parking lot expansion the; applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to. the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6.acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (GA)'and Medium Industrial (IM), zoning designations and is also located withirt Urban Design District D. Access would Continue to be provided Via existing driveways along .SW. 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, H- rdie Ave S and S Grady Way. There -appear to -be no critical areas on-site. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for -recyclable deposits and a 30 .cubic yard area for refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards. Section 4-4-090.F allows.the Administrator to grant modifications from' the refuse an recyclable standards for individual cases, -provided the modification meets the foilowing'criteria (pursuant to RMC 4 -9 -250.D.2)' - a., Will'meet the objectives and' safety, function, appearance, environmental protectlon and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b. Will riot be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and Renton CityHalf 0 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. r rentonwa.gov C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and d. can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Background The applicant,, Larry D. Craighead Architects, Fins requested a modification from the City's Refuse and Recyclable Standards (RMC -44=090.E) M order to reduce the size. of the required refuse deposit area. Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1;000 square feet of building gross floor area'for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10,square feet per 1,0D0 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits.' The code applies in this 'instance due to the proposed expansions -of the.faciiity which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for recyciables (751SIF= 5 x 155,244/1,000 5F) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502- 10.x 1155,244%1,000 SF)). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code. However,. the proposed refuse deposit area is less' than -the minimum required. Therefore, a modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart. Analysis a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and - maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon.sound engineering judgment. If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet required to a 30 cubic yard, area. The applicant contends that a reduction in.the required siie of the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compactor which has been engineered for high' volute usage. The applicant contends the self contained, compactor would reduce refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and: minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives of the refuse and recyclable standards. Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse'deposit.areas in the amount necessary for the Walmart. b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in -the vicinity. The applicant -contends the- proposed refuse'deposit area,and.use of .the .self contained compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and proposed facility. It is not anticipated thafthe approval -of a modification to permit a 30.cubic, yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1;502 sctuare foot conventional space, would be injurious to other properties In the vicinity. ' C) -Conform -to the intent and purpose of the Code. See discussion under criterioin "a)" above. d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The refuse and recyciable.standards (RMC 4-4^090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross. floor area be 'provided for refuse deposit areas. The applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the'use of a compactor, which has been engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the. reduction of the required deposit areas is considered to be reasonable. e) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should not create adverse impagts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store. Decision The,refuse and recyclable deposit area, modification for the Wa[mart Expansion is hereby approved. Appeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on of before 5:00 p.m. April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057; Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding.the appeal process, maybe obtairied from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6520. If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,-at (425) 430-7219. . Sincerely, C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Date Pianning.Division CC. Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Parties of Record Yellow File Denis Law 0 Mayor J' Of f'ti� r� , Jr Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Usunobun Osaigie Larry D. Craighead 211 N. Record St, Ste 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Subject: Walmart Expansion Modification Request 743 Rainier Ave S File No. LUA1.0-009, SA -H, ECF Dear Mr. Osaigie; This letter. is sent in response to your March 4, 2014 request for modifications from the City's Refuse and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location. Summary of Request The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern Facade with modifications along. the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards. Section 4-4-090Y allows the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable standards for individual cases, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250. D.2 ): Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and Will not be injurious to other property(les) in the vicinity; and Renton CityHal[ • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Background The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area. Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance due to the proposed expansions of the facflity which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x (155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code. However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart. Analysis a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the u_se of a compacter which has been engineered for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives of the refuse and recyclable standards. Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for the Walmart. b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. The applicant contends the proposed refuse deposit area and use of the self contained compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval of a modification to permit a 30 cubic yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. c) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. See discussion under criterion "a)" above. d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be provided for refuse deposit areas. The applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is considered to be reasonable. PWI L eJ Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store. Decision The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved. Appeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be flied in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,. at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, r C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Planning. Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Parties of Record Yellow File ]Ld-2- -S' l r 0 Date OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, 4509 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT/APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA.10-009, EGF, SA -H 743 Rainier Ave S May 13, 2010 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUN24ARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 20, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: YM4UTES The following minutes are a summary of the AprU 27, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map application, reports, staff comments and other documentation pertinent to this request, 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Tile No.: L.UA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton., Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7"' Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would beset aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance --- Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie ,Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase, the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break up -the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 1.0 -foot landscape strip along all street Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Landsca a Plan Exhibit No. 5: Tree Invento Plan Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 8: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 ages) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton., Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7"' Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would beset aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance --- Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie ,Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase, the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break up -the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 1.0 -foot landscape strip along all street 9 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.. LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 3 frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 30,600 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements. Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to 30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion. Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that .pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion of the structure to SW 7`s Street. The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the existing Iights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code. A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic feet per second, therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area_ The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of Iandscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fagade. A building materials and colors board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided. 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May l3, 2010 Page 4 Jack McCullou , McCullough & Hill, 701 5t' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site. There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this proj cot and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward. In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as any of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widened out a -ad some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7`s, which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located. Usunobun Qggt te, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation.. The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy, They want the City to be happy with this expansion. Jack McCullough stated that they were going to'take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance, They are consistently working with staff to make the project better, Kavren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short Plat, All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject to final review and permitting. ! 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14 May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly was a matter of a nice every distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project_ There: was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RJECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FMINGs: The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SETA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1, 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -NI). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. There was no opposition from the public. regarding the subject proposal. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's, 7. The map element of the Comprehensive plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM -(Medium Industrial). The vast majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site limited to 1M uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959. 10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded. 11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or I3.6 acres. 12. The subject site is essentially level. 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees, Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged. 15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls. 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. 17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. Tla a roofline along the north will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have been demonstrated to handle wastelrecycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal 19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the ehanges in the height of elements along eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior treatments. 20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares_ The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet_ Drofiak Apartments Site flan Approval file No.: f,UA-09-1I2, SA -11 May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area where Billy McMe's was located_ Code permits a range of parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls, The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger complement of parking. 22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes 65,690 square feet or approximately 40,040 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas. Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees, These landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. 23, The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership. Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses, 25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff. The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies, Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial Corridor, should be applied. 27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tail. Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards_ Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the expanded parking area will. be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex. 28. The following Table contains staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines. aj Review of Compliance to District `D' Design Guidelines; The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal 0 Droiiak Apartments Site Platt Approval File No.: LUA-49-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 8 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and rovide service to businesses. N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets In addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system, The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest); (a) Nigh Visibility Street_ A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrlan-Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish act[ve, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and so[ar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets withln the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. V, Minimum Standard: orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive alsle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard, 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing d a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: i 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No. :I,UA-09-112, SA -11 May 13, 2014 Page 9 Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new bulldfngs differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element Into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent; To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the .pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall concentrated ✓ „be and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see Illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening Not Compliant and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a eonditlon of approval the applicant submit elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure re uirements garbage, re clip collection and utfll areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened Not Compliant around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors. Staff Comment. See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing Is prohibited. Staff Comment., See comments above. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. 6. Gateways: Not Applicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual Impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a bullding and the front Not Compliant property line or the building and side property llne on the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comment. The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and t� Droflak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 10 Rainier Ave S/SR 157. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. rhe parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to Increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site, Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 157 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SW 7`h St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street_ 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials, therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent Not Compliant properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning project Manager prior to construction or building permit aeproval. 100, Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact see RMC 4-4-080E7 Landscape Re ulr meats . 3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be d provided throughout Rarking areas_ Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties.. V/ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. f Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. THP walkwav shall Include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street • 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Ilan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 11 3, Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians, and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. +� Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas In sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping Is Intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channeiize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. ve trees (see illustration, subsection RMC -4-3-100.G461). ✓ (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. +r (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient'width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shalt not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3, Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians, and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. +� Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas In sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping Is Intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channeiize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. ve Minimum Standard, All pervious areas shall be landscaped dsee RRMC4-4-070. Landscaping)., VI Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates, For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100,H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. Minimum Standard. The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. d Minimum Standard:5urface narking areas. shall be screened. by landscaping in to .order reduce views of parked cars from streets ]see RMC 4-4-08OF7. Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet In width as measured fr9m the sidewalk (see Illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b}. +� Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 12 Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively_ Minimum Standard; Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at (slanting and have a mature height between three and four feet. VK Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less thou three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy Mlnirnum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: I Total Number of Spaces .1 Minimum Required. Landscape Area" 1 15 to 50 1 15 square feet/parking space 1 51 to 99 1 25 square feet/parking space 104 or more 1 35 square feet/parking space We (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall he eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the cede, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not necessary. All new parking areas would corpply with the minimum standard for trees acing. +� (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. V, (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. (5) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. .r Minimum Standard: Regular malntenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant M1n[murn Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment. An irrigation plan was notsubmttted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.. LP:A-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 13. retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). 5taff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two SO font vestibules along the approximate 500 foot eastern fogade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 -foot Intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to dlstinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St facing fagade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center_ While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane, there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval, 2. Ground -level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. _ Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) Is considered a blank wail if: (a) It Is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet In height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wail having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank wails are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Sta Comment: See comments above. 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan. Approval File No.; LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 14 Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other rMinimurn landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental fighting, pedestrian fumiture and a large planter box with an iconic tree In order to break up the monotony of the large fa§ade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure In addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern facade for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plana are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following In order to achieve a human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: ✓ (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. ✓ (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. ✓ (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. ✓ (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district, ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and Interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the e uipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Minimum Standard: Screenin features shall blend with the architectural character of the [41*dlng buildin consistent with RMC 4-4-095E Itoaf-To E ui ment. mpliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roofmounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. Materials: Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 15 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance overtime; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood, Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open N/A space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color N/A scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or In combination, shall have an attractive texture, N/A pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertlsing businesses; provide directional assistance. encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village, and create color and Interest. N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an Integral part of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include: i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; ill. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above flnished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as ap ved by the Director. ro Nf A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: ighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting Exterior ©n -Si e. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a conditlon of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt om provisions located in AMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1 May 13, 2010 Page 16 Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment. See comments above _ Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: see comments obove CONCLUSIONS: The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation, g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Tn addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined when actual permits for construction are submitted. 4, The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the • 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Placa Approval File No.: LUA-04-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 17 large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and cast work to ease the transition to the much larger background Wahmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code, The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas, The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. 6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced. 8. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use. 9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale. 10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet same of the standards. 11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will have to meet the standards for containment and screening. 12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in the large space between the street and actual store. 13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications_ There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking Iot landscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. lb. In conclusion, while it might be nicc to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cats and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. DECISION: The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non- significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4, The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. Drofak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14 May 13, 2010 Page 19 6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional hurnau scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist. ORDERED THIS 13'h day of May 2010. --Ta LI'X� FRED 7. KAUF H1;AR.1NG E R TRANSMITTED THIS 13`h day of May 2010 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jack McCullough McCullough & Hill 701 5t° Avenue, Ste. Seattle, WA 98104 Kayren Kittrickc Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jeff Chambers PACLAND 7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Maim Street, Ste. 509 Bellevue, WA 98004 Jeremy Smith, Manager Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajiba.de, Asst. Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst. Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart 42516 Walmart 42516 Walmart ##2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98957 Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent_ Supv. Walrnart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pictsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Grof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must he filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. M&I 27 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. • • Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr, Automotive Walmart 42516 Walmart 92516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart 92516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld. Francis Canapi Walmart 42516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr. Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Josie Mervcus, Dept. Mgr. Abram Sparrow, Dept_ Mgr Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Sup. 2"' Shift Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent_ Supv. Walrnart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pictsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Grof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must he filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. M&I 27 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision.. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Drofiak Apartments Sitc Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Cleric, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5;00 p.m., AUv 27, 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by 911 Council or fiival Processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal, Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made iu public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.5 ac) Total BufldingArea GSF. 150,244 5F 1t 0 co E3 - 18 T23N RSE W 1/2 IIM CA 1M FAm �'H IM im Nis KP 1LF-1 ZONING MM 8a❑K Hao T23N EXHIBIT 2 M TEt'1.111i M SS MCES G 3 PfflffM ON 11/n/W �yyb�eF�4Wtlm re.tpr,wr..,,.vw.aw•. srawR 0 200 400 Feet 19 T23N R5E W 1/2 1:4.800 �i19 1fr! CO _y 1 r1 W W et , 1M CO m jl 1t 0 co E3 - 18 T23N RSE W 1/2 IIM CA 1M FAm �'H IM im Nis KP 1LF-1 ZONING MM 8a❑K Hao T23N EXHIBIT 2 M TEt'1.111i M SS MCES G 3 PfflffM ON 11/n/W �yyb�eF�4Wtlm re.tpr,wr..,,.vw.aw•. srawR 0 200 400 Feet 19 T23N R5E W 1/2 1:4.800 �i19 ti•- 1 �.-y '_ ..a.. iYyi. l�!.r ♦.SSn'.� �+-.�-4.'• .. : _ �.'a.�Y_.•` i��•`='l�u�L__.--.�..� �'.b � !,!. `'':_' c:. � � - •-E . C. 7 iii ' •-�Nr� ' �' � I ] F •s��x {'".� ` Lr�J { � - � 1 �•IA, lFw.'+.I'�1ui i Cc P I f - � .: �„ -rimer �•+-� f/tt4', �-FtR /� � ; i i iia C�rt 3 P k' i4 ` jg[ p 6 4 Q � � s A o i XF IS Ito �' 21 6 S i 1 ad d1o, d ti•- 1 �.-y '_ ..a.. iYyi. l�!.r ♦.SSn'.� �+-.�-4.'• .. : _ �.'a.�Y_.•` i��•`='l�u�L__.--.�..� �'.b � !,!. `'':_' c:. � � - •-E . C. 7 iii ' •-�Nr� ' �' � I ] F •s��x {'".� ` Lr�J { � - � 1 �•IA, lFw.'+.I'�1ui i Cc P I f - � .: �„ -rimer �•+-� f/tt4', �-FtR /� � ; i i iia C�rt 3 P k' i4 ` r�. M ! ..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla jg[ p 6 4 Q � � s A o i XF IS Ito �' 21 6 S d w r�. M ! ..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla jg[ p 6 4 A o i a d r�. M ! ..Ka . ae t¢ wa ��'t� Vt r w y.dy+fi�aVl�nwla G Ln W,z 0 0 m a G'7 c. RL Q 7 fR c➢ 0 op They, in the language of the code, shall be. requrred to comply w€tfi the provisions of fhis Oct on.":' CCULLOUGH HILL, Ps June 4, 2010 Fred J. Kaufman Citv of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE; Response to Request for Reconsideration File NO, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Dear Mr. Examiner- .� _ t We write on behalf of the applicant Jeff Chambers/PACLAND to respond to the Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") of your decision approving the above -referenced project (the "Project"), which was filed by "Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth," ("RNHG") on May 27, 2010. The request is without merit and should be denied. We note at the outset that RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner in this case. As such, there is no evidence in this closed record supporting any standing on the part of RNHG, and die Request fails to set forth any grounds under which RNHG is an "interested person" in this case, as required under RMC 4-8-100. RNHG's absence in the administrative review process for the Project constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies mi this case. The Applicant reserves all rights and defenses in this proceeding relating to RNI-IG's lack of participation in this case, failure to make a record, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of standing. RMC 4-8-100(G)(4) outlines the criteria for the reconsideration of the Examiner's decision. Reconsideration may be granted when the Exarnizzer's decision is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of lain or fact, an etros: in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by the appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the Examiner deems proper. Here, RNHG has failed to show that the Examiner's decision meets any of the reconsideration criteria. Its request must be rejected. Issue One RNHG states that the Hearing Examiner should reconsider the site plaza review decision because the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") studying traffic impacts of the project allegedly underestimated trip generation counts. This allegation is untimely, without support in the record, and should be rejected. 701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhseattle.com Ab i • City= of Renton Hearing Examinee June 4, 2010 Page 2 of 6 First, the traffic mitigation fee referenced by RNHG was imposed by the SEPA Mitigated Deterinination of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") that was issued in connection with this Project. See Attachment 1. The MDNS was issued on March 25, 2010. The TIA submitted by the applicant identified that the project would generate 608 additional daily trips. To mitigate for these additional trips, the MDNS imposed a SEPA condition requiring the payment of $45,600 in traffic impact fees (608 tips x $75.00). See Attachment 1, Condition S. The deadline for MDNS appeals expired on April 16, 2014. RNHG did not subunit comments into the record regarding the MDNS, and failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG cannot now attempt to appeal the imposition of the traffic mitigation condition, as the appeal is untimely. The request for reconsidetation should be rejected for this reason alone. Second, RNHG's allegations are without support in the record. RNHG did not appear at the site plan hearing before the Hearing Examiner and has not submitted into the record any evidence supporting its allcpdons of a discrepancy regarding trip generation. It is barred from -AW submitting any evidence now because the record has been closed. In the absence of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, RNHG's request for reconsideration must be rejected. RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). Issue Two RNHG has alleged that the project does not comply with the City of Renton's Design District `D' regulations. RNHG has misrepresented the Renton Municipal Code with regards to the design guidelines, and this allegation is therefore without factual or legal support. It should be rejected. First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit evidence showing that the Project does not comply with the staf?s interpretation of the design guidelines. In the absence of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, the Examiner's initial decision, and the staff's recommendation, are entitled to deference. See RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). RN14G's request for reconsideration must be rejected. In addition, RNHG's allegation regarding the City's design guidelines misses the point. The guidelines specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). ("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines also grant the decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and do not requite strict compliance with the guidelines: When the Adn-�inisttator...or designee has determined that the proposed manner o fineeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be requited to detnonstuAte sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. i City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 3 of G RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). `the guidelines grant further flexibility, to be exercised by the reviewing official: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standatds and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(D)(2), The Exami.net correctly applied RMC 4-3-100p)(2) by allowing sorne flexibility, and by requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a better -designed project. See Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions S, 9, 10, 11. For example, rather than requiring a con1iei:cial store to provide windows along the ground floor, the Examiner imposed a condition rnaintaaining the intent of the design guideline (to provide human interest at ground level). See Condition 8. RNHG's allegations are without merit and must be rejected. Issue Three RNHG has alleged that the project is an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use. This allegation is without Iegal support. It must be rejected. In addition to its traditional development regulations, the RMC includes, at Chapter 4-3, a set of Urban Design Overlay regulations. They are designed to implement the Land Use and Comtriuni y Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As true overlay regulations, they are applied independent of the other development regulations of the Code, which they supersede. These overlay :regulations govern: a. Site design and building location; b. Parking and vehicular access; c. Pedestrian environment; d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space; e. Building Architectural Design; f. Signage; g. Lighting. The application of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically: 2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the ;zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines, In order to provide predictability, standards are provided, These City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 4 of G standards specify a prescriptive n-ianner in which the requirement can be inet. In order to ;provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the :intent statement provide direction for those who seek to tneet the xeguired element in a manner that is different from the standards. a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be rnade by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Rconornic Development or designee has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design requitement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. Thus, the Administrator (and the Hearing Examiner in review) must review the proposed project design against the standardsiguidelines and intent statement of each design element, in order to .:-At determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations. Under RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii), the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses. "Big Box Retail" uses are defined in the Code as follows: An indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five thousand (75,000) square Feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high parking -to -building area ration. Big -box retail buildings are typically single - story structures, with a mass that stands more than thirty feet (30;) tall. Big - box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership warehouse clubs that einphasiue bulk sales, discount stores, and outlet stores. This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses. RMC 4-11-1$0. The Project is a Big Box Retail use. As such, under the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, the Project is subject to compliance Nvith the design regulations applicable to District `D'. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii). As noted above, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations govern, among other things, site design and building location. That is to say, the requited site design and building location for the Project is determined by the Urban Design Overlay Regulations. Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner Decision, the Project has been determined to comply with these regulations, including with respect to the location of the building in the Project. Under the Site Plan Approval pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, die approved location of the building in the Project is not consistent with the setback requirements of the CA zone (sae RMC 4-2.100), as noted in the Request. However, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations are clear that "where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail." RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). 'Thus, the approval of the location of the building in the Project, as 0 City of Renton Hearing Examiner J unc 4, 2010 Page 5 of G determined pursuant to the Urban Design. Overlay Regulations, controls over the inconsistent provisions of the CA zone relating to setbacks. Conclusion No. 3 of the Hearing Examiner decision acknowledges that the Project cannot be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within 15 feet of Rainier Avenue. Under Conclusion No. 4, the Hearing Examiner notes (in his discussion relating to Urban Design compliance) that the significant building setback works to ease the transition to neighboring uses_ This Conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which suggest that buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land uses" and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale." RMC 4-3-100(E)(1). With respect to the applicable standards of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations regarding building siting, both the Administrator and the Hearing Examiner properly concluded that thQuProject will meet those standards. Hence, while the Project is "nonconforming' as to the front yard setback requirements of the CA zone, it is fully confornvng to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which control in this case. This conclusion is reinforced by the provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations wlxich delegate to the Administrator (and the Examiner) the authority to approve expansions of nonconforming structures through the design review process. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) provides that the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically apply to "alterations, enlargements, and/ot restorations of nonconforming structures, pursuant to RMC 4-10-050," Thus, even if the Project were viewed as "nonconforming" under Rl1,IC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically authorize the Adtninistrator (and Hearing Examiner) to use the design review process to supersede the other provisions of the Code. The Examiner's application of the design guidelines to the Project was proper. RNHG's allegation, must be rejected. In summary, RNHG's allegations are untimely and without legal or factual uuerit in the following inanner: RNHG's claim regarding the traffic mitigation condition is untimely as the traffic mitigation fees were imposed as SEPA conditions in the MDNS. The appeal period has long since passed for the MDNS. RNHG's claim regarding design guidelines is without legal or factual merit. First, RNHG failed to submit any evidence in support of its claim. Second, the design guidelines gives the Examiner the authority to encourage creative design alternatives to meet the intent of the guidelines. RMC 4 -3- 100p)(2). -3- 100(D)(2). 0 City of Renton I -Tearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page G of G RNHG's claim regarding nonconforming structures is without legal merit. The Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which prevail over other design regulations of the Code, apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses like the Project. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). The Examiner properly applied the design guidelines to this Rig Box Retail use to create a project of better design. Even if the Project were deemed a "nonconfonning structure" under RMC 4-10-O50, die Urban Design Overlay Regulations would still apply to the Project, and would control over inconsistent development regulations of the Code - For these reasons, we respectfully ask that the Hearing Examiner reject the Request for Reconsideration. Sincerely, YJo%-MIcCu1[ough cc: Rocale Tirrunons, City of Renton Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP Denis Law - Mayor City of Ii I V. 14 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Jeff Chambers, P.E. Pacland 1505 Westlake Avenue N #305 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: ENVIRQNMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPAL DET ERMINATi©N a� Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Chambers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2010, Appeals must be filed In writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-5- 110.13. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510, A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1035 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, an April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan, The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Renton City Hall 4 1055 South Grady Way a Renton,Washington 98457 o rentonwa.gov 10 Jeff Chambers March 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so, if you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Rgview Committee, Rocal Timm Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: Peter BDnnell - 801uaelWhrnily LLC / Owner(s) w aEPAttrMrLntr OF coMMuntrry /F% CiLy of�� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT ERC MEETING DATE: March 22, 2010 Project Name; Walmart Expansion Owner: Peter Bonnell; Bonneil Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004 Applicant/Contact: left Chambers; Pacland;1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 983.09 File Number: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner ProjectSummory: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Revlew for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail Facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Gar_teiz Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would Continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5 and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. Project Locution: 743 Rainier Ave S Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac) STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDA7701V: Determination of Nan Shmificance . mitimitpri fnnic_mi rrcgcLc GuWLIUn MUM ERC Report- Walrnart kxpanslon City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Environmental Review Committee Report WALWART EKPANSIOPV LUA10-009, ECF, sA-N Report of March 22, 2010 page 2 of 6 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Environmentai (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,004 square feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation. In addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested. The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/511 167 between SW 7'h St and S Grady Way. A recently approved Short Plat (I-UA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales, currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium industrial (iM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designations. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745 surface parking stalls and a 4,701 square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from 515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be brought in for fill to be balanced onsite. Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7`h St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet. The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7). There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal_ There are no known critical areas on or near the site. PARTTWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.23.0.240, the fallowing environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -day Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009, ERC Report - Walmart Expansion City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deveiopment Environmental Review Committee Report WALMART EXPANSION _ Report of March 22, 2010 LUA10-009, ECF, SA-H Page 3 of 6 9 2. The applicant shalt comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010, during project construction. 3. if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit apprpval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. 4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work .shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. f. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 Per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning and N,figbborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Site Plan Exhibit Landscape Plan Exhlblt4; North and South Elevations Exhibit 5: East and West Elevations Exhibit 6: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 7: Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval D. Environmental impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following Probable impacts: I. Earth Impacts: The site Is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site is located in a landscape area and Is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from inose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500 cubic yards of haul -out. Following development Impervious surface coverage will be approximately 99%. A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 / feet to 54 feet below existing site grades, The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation support, slab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found In the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated [november 30, 2009. ERC Report - Walm art Fypanslan City of Renton Department of Community & EcOnomic DQvelopment Environmental Review Committee Report WALMART IXPANSION _ L1IA10-oo9, ECF, SA-H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 4�of 6 Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared byierracon, dated November 30, 2009, !Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4-060; SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water a. Storm Water Impacts, The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND. (dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of 29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale. The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in impervious area would be 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 529,863 square feet. Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing blofiltration swaie located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the existing storm system in SW 7'f' Street. As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements, Any offsite runoff that currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erasion control. In order to limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Environmental Health a. Noise Impacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building ERC Report - Walmart Expansion City of Renton Department of Community cot Economic Devefapment Environmental Review t.Omrnittee Report WALMART EXPAIVSIOJV IUA10-009, ECF, SA H Report of March 22, 2010 — Page 5 of 6 permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe }piles are being driven. Nexus; SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. In the event that cultural artifacts are found, worst cannot recommence until approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, worst shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations S. Transportation Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7'h St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access paints along SW 7't' St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR 167; and a full access point along SIAL Grady Way. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements would be required for the proposal. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation l=ee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new Baily trips anticipated, has been estimated -at $45,600.00 (608 trips x 75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to Issuance of building permits_ The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Fire & Police Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have Indicated they have the ability to provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed. The fee, at $0.5Z per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit, The fee, at $0,52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472,00. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations ERC Report - Walmart Expansion 5 City of Renton Department of Community & Ecanomlc Development Environmental Review Committee Report WALMARTFVANSIDN LUAID-0179, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2010 Page 5 of 6 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Motes to Applicant," -/ Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process; Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 16, 2010. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Nearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed In writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional Information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Ciffice, Renton Clty Nail - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NO TES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are Trot subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. P Ian n i nrr: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:3o p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. 2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC Is only triggered with a change or additions In number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Surface Water: 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Transvortatlon: 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily trips was submitted. 2. ADA crossing Improvements are required to be evaluated and In compliance when construction occurs on the site. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control pian shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape Irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required.. 3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submltted to the Citv Ball sixth floor counter. EAC Report - Walmart E'xpansion,doc 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 27 28 is JU1_ 2 9 20IC,., RECcIVE� QiTY CLEA S C�FFICF BEFORE THE RENTON CITY COUNCIL WAL-MART SITE PLAN APPROVAL I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILE NO. LUA 10-009 I, JESSICA CLAWSON, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows; I am an attorney with McCullough Hill, PS, attorneys for PacLand, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., applicant. On the date indicated below, I caused the copies of the APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, DECLARATION OF JESSICA CLAWSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLICANT'S RESPONSE BRIEF, and this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE to be served via e- mail and messenger service on: CLAUDIA NEWMAN BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP 1001 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 3303 SEATTLE, WA 98154 H H CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 1 of 2 LAWAI OAR-RRenlonlC Council appeaRCertificate of 5enice0l.doc McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 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 27 28 0 0 And by e-mail and U.S. Mail on: LARRY WARREN RENTON CITY ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 626 RENTON, WA 98057 DATED thit Zday of July, 2010, at Seattle, Washington. SSICA AWSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Page 2 of 2 0WAL46AARi1Ren1oMQty Council appeallCertilcate of SerAce0l.doc McCullough Hill, PS 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, Washington 98104 206.812.3388 206.812.3389 fax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H l V l.i ii 1 iw LrFi s or-rfcE r; ✓c/U/, fytchf ��:'��i'i Y✓i a�C� mf lYt�. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH I. INTRODUCTION Wal -Mart's attempt to avoid consideration of the merits of RNHG's appeal by challenging its standing and its purported failure to exhaust administrative remedies falls flat in many respects. I The Renton Code allows parties who did not attend the Hearing Examiner hearing to appeal the Examiner's decision to the City Council. RNHG is an interested and aggrieved party with a member who lives near the development proposal site and who utilizes the roads that Wal-Mart traffic will use and who will otherwise suffer direct adverse impacts from the development proposal. Therefore RNHG has standing to bring the appeal. Wal -Mart's argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is incorrect and nonsensical and is based on a misunderstanding of the exhaustion doctrine. That doctrine requires a parry to exhaust administrative remedies provided by the City's ordinance before tiling a superior court challenge to the City's decision. RNHG is in the process of exhausting its administrative remedies and has taken all requisite steps toward that end. RNHG presented all of the Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomq s at Law REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 1 10"1 I ouTth Awriuc, swtc 3303 icatdc N\ A 98154 Td. (206) 2(A-86(10 FaN (2D6) 264-931H1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 issues that are currently on appeal to the Examiner, the Examiner ruled on those issues, and RNHG filed a timely appeal with the City Council, which is currently underway. Perhaps it is because Wal-Mart has no credible argument in response to the merits of RNHG's appeal that Wal-Mart has attempted to challenge standing and exhaustion. There is no dispute that the proposal is violating the maximum setback requirements and the prohibition against expansion of non -conforming uses in the City of Renton Code. Wal -Mart's response is the incredible notion that the Urban Design Regulations somehow supersede these requirements and Wal-Mart can violate setback requirements and expand a non -conforming use as a result. There is no hint of such an idea in the Renton Code. The true irony of that defense is that Wal -Mart's proposal is precisely the opposite of what the Urban Design Regulations envision. It undermines the goal of a walkable, pedestrian -friendly, visually stimulating area by expanding a non -conforming franchise retail store with a sea of asphalt located between the building and the front property line. There can be no question that the Hearing Examiner's decision approving this expansion was in error and should be reversed. II. STANDING AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES A. Renton Nei hbors for Healthy Growth Has Standing to Bring This A eal I . The Renton Code allows parties who did not attend_ the Hearing Examiner hearing to appeal the Examiner's decision to the City Council RNHG is an interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's decision and, thus, has authority to bring this appeal to the City Council. The Renton City Code states: Any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision or recommendation may submit a notice of appeal to the city clerk, upon a form furnished by the city clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the Examiner's written report. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 2 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomces at Lau In11 Foutth Avenuc, Suite 33E13 ScatticWA )8154 Tel {2( ,6) 214-96011 Fav (2116) 2G4-9300 I RMC 4-8-110(F)(1) (emphasis supplied). The Renton Code does not limit the right of appeal to 2 individuals who attended the hearing, rather it allows "any interested party" who is "aggrieved" to i appeal a Hearing Examiner's decision. 4 When a local code provisions gives a right of appeal to "any interested party" aggrieved 5 6 by the decision, the class of persons allowed to appeal goes beyond individuals or groups who 7 participated in the administrative hearing. Courts have confirmed that there is a distinction 8 between code language that allows "any interested party aggrieved" to appeal a decision and code 9 language that allows only a "parry of record in the administrative proceeding" to appeal: 10 While some review statutes have confined the right of review to 11 persons who were parties of record in the administrative proceeding, it is clear that provisions which authorize review at the instance of a 12 person aggrieved are intended to create a broader class of persons 13 with standing to seek judicial review. 14 Sterling v. Spokane County, 31 Wn. App. 467, 472, 642 P.2d 1255 (1982), quoting 4 R. Anderson, 15 Zoning § 25.10 (2nd ed. 1977). 16 Where the statute allows appeals to "persons aggrieved," the standards for standing to appeal 17 are less restrictive. Id. at 473, citing 4 R. Anderson, Zoning, § 25.09, § 25.10; see 3 A. Rathkopf, 18 Zoning and Planning, § 43.01 (4"' ed. 1981). 19 Adjoining ... landowners may therefore be persons "aggrieved" 20 ... The particular landowner would be "aggrieved" regardless of whether he appeared and became a party to the hearing before the 21 board ... His legal interest would be no less affected due to a 22 failure to appear and object. 23 Sterling v. Spokane County, at 474, quoting Stout v_ Mercer, 160 Ind. App. 454, 312 N.E.2d 515, 24 520 (1974). The Renton Code could not be more clear — it allows a broad class of persons to 25 appeal a Hearing Examiner decision and nowhere requires that appellants of that decision to have 26 attended the open record hearing held by the Hearing Examiner before making his decision. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 3 BrieUn & Newman, LLP Attomevs at Lau - U111] Fourth Avcnue, Suite 3363 Seattle YVA 98154 1e1. (2116) 264866) 1-a.\ (21.16) 264-93110 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 0 2. Factual evidence that demonstrates the right to appeal is admissible on appeal Wal-Mart argues that because there is no evidence in the Hearing Examiner's record showing that RNHG is aggrieved by the Examiner's decision, the record lacks any evidence that RNHG has standing. An appellate body will consider declarations to determine whether appellants can satisfy a prerequisite to the appellate body's jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that evidence for standing is allowed to be submitted to the appellate body on appeal of a closed record: BPA cited several cases for the proposition that parties appealing agency decisions cannot supplement the record on appeal. These cases are inapposite because they address the merits of the agency decision rather than standing to challenge that decision in a federal court. See, e_g., Seattle Community Council Fed'n v. FAA, 961 F.2d 829, 834, n.3 (9"' Cir. 1992). Because Article III's standing requirement does not apply to agency proceedings, petitioners had no reason to include facts sufficient to establish standing as part of the administrative record. We therefore consider the affidavits not in order to supplement the administrative record on the merits, but rather to determine whether petitioners can satisfy a prerequisite to the court's jurisdiction. Didrickson v. United States Department of Interior, 982 F.2d 1332, 1340 (9t' Cir. 1992) (accepting appellant- intervenor's supplemental declaration alleging particularized injury because intervenors were not required to establish standing until they appealed). NW Envtl. Defense Ctr, v. Bonneville Power Admin., 117 F.3d 1520, 152.7-28 (9' Cir. 1997). Evidence to prove standing is also admissible on appeal beyond the record under the Administrative Procedure Act, RCW 34.05.566 and the Land Use Petition Act, RCW 36.700.120. See Washington Independent Tel. Assn v. Wash. Ulil. & Transp. Comm'n, 110 Wn. App. 498, 518, 41 P.3d 1212 (2002); RCW 36.700.120. The question of whether a party is "aggrieved" and, therefore, has a right to appeal to the City Council was not an issue considered by the Renton Hearing Examiner. There is no requirement Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomcpc at Lain REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 4 "ul I'°°`fl x,7sa4"'.�"` yea1tic 11' �1 7 98154 '['el. (206) 264 8600 has. (206) 2649301, 1 that a party who attends or participates in the Hearing Examiner hearing or, for that matter, files a 2 request for reconsideration with the Examiner, be "aggrieved." See RMC 4-8-100 ("any interested 3 person" may request reconsideration of the Examiner's decision). RNHG had no reason to include 4 facts sufficient to establish standing before the Examiner. The first time that a party is required to 5 6 demonstrate that it is "aggrieved" is before the City Council. The Council should consider evidence 7 to determine whether appellants can satisfy a prerequisite to the City Council's jurisdiction. 8 3. RNHG is an interested and aggrieved party 9 RNHG is an interested party that is aggrieved by the impacts of the Wal-Mart Expansion 10 Site Plan because at least one member who lives near the proposal site and who will be aggrieved 11 by the land use change and the impacts from increased traffic. 12 An organization has standing when at least one of its members has standing as an 13 14 individual. Suquamish Indian Tribe v. Kitsap County, 92 Wn. App. 816, 830, 965 P.2d 636 15 (1998). An individual who lives near a development proposal site and who utilizes the road or 16 would otherwise suffer direct adverse impacts from increased traffic caused by that development 17 proposal is aggrieved by the proposal. Id. at 832. 18 Cindy Wheeler, a member of RNHG, lives approximately 1,500 feet as the crow flies 19 from the Wal-Mart proposal site. Declaration of Cindy Wheeler (Aug. 4, 2010). She frequently 20 21 uses the shopping areas near her home and regularly drives on streets that would be impacted by 22 the additional traffic that the Wal-Mart expansion will create. Id., ¶ 3. The existing traffic 23 situation is problematic for her and adding to that traffic will adversely impact her. Id. Ms. 24 Wheeler is adversely affected by panhandlers in the area who sit at traffic corners. Id., 4. 25 There is a direct correlation between the heavy traffic and the presence of panhandlers asking for 26 money as people sit at traffic lights. Id Adding more traffic will increase that problem and REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 5 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Atmmevs at Lan 'I 0()1 Pourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle \X.A )Al 54 Tel_ (21 6) 264-8600 1'az. (206) 264-2i(K) I increase the adverse impact to Ms. Wheeler. Id. Ms. Wheeler has also testified that if the Wal - 2 Mart area was better for walking and if the panhandlers were gone, she would use and enjoy a 3 more walkable shopping area. Id., ¶ 5. 4 Because RNHG has a member who is an aggrieved interested party, RNHG has standing 5 6 to appeal the City Council decision. 7 4. RNHG is not raising: SEPA issues in this anneal 8 Wal-Mart repeatedly points out that a SEPA decision was made and RNHG did not appeal 9 that decision.' RNHG did not raise any SEPA issues in its appeal. The question of whether RNHG 10 has filed a SEPA appeal is not relevant to the issue of exhaustion or standing before the Council in 1i its appeal of the site plan approval. 12 B. RNHG is in the Process of Exhausting Its Administrative Remedies 13 14 Wal -Mart's argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is incorrect 15 and nonsensical and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the exhaustion doctrine. 3.6 1. The exhaustion doctrine 17 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well established in Washington. 18 Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 866, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997). 19 It is a legal doctrine that requires a party to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by a 20 21 local jurisdiction's ordinances before filing a superior court challenge to an action taken by that a 22 local jurisdiction. Id. In other words, a party who is challenging the granting or denial of a 23 certain land use decision must generally follow the steps that local ordinances provide for 24 25 ' In its brief, Wal-Mart says "for unexplained reasons, RNHG failed to appeal the City's MDNS ..." That is an odd statement considering that RNHG has explained more than once that it became aware of the project on 26 or about May 17, 2010. Clearly, the group did not file an appeal because it had no notice of knowledge about the project at that time. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 6 Sricklin & Newman, LLP Attomeys at Law 11N11 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle WA 98154 Tel. (206) 2648600 Fax. (206) 2649.3011 0 0 1 appealing the decision before appealing to state superior court, Citizens fc�r Mount Iiernon v. 2 Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d at 866. 3 The rule provides that "in general, an agency action cannot be challenged on review until 4 all rights of administrative appeal have been exhausted." Id., citing Spokane County Fire 5 6 Protection District 9 v. Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 97 Wn.2d 922, 928, 652 P.2d 7 1356 (1982). 8 The exhaustion rule is not absolute. Prisk v_ City of Poulsbo, 46 Wn. App. 793, 797, 732 9 P.2d 1013 (1987). When addressing problems involving the exhaustion of remedies rule, 10 reviewing courts necessarily exercise a great deal of discretion. Id. The exhaustion rule is one of 11 restraint, requiring courts to weigh and balance many factors in order to decide whether requiring 12 exhaustion is desirable. Id. When consideration of fairness and practicality outweigh the policies 13 14 underlying the doctrine, compliance with the rule is unnecessary. Id. at 797-798, citing Orion 15 Corp. v. State, 103 Wn.2d 441, 693 P.2d 1369 (1985). 16 The Washington Supreme Court has made it clear that the central purpose of the 17 exhaustion doctrine is to allow for the issues to first be raised before the agency. Citizens,for 18 Mount Vernon v_ City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d at 869, citing King County v. King County 19 Boundary Review Board, 122 Wn.2d 648, 668, 860 P.2d 1024 (1993). The exhaustion principle 20 21 is founded upon the belief that the judiciary should give proper deference to that body possessing 22 expertise in areas outside the conventional experience of judges. Id, citing South Hollywood 23 Citizens v. King County, 101 Wn.2d 68. 73, 677 P.2d 114 (1984). Among other things, the 24 policies underlying this principle include protecting the local jurisdiction's autonomy by allowing 25 it to correct its own errors and ensuring that individuals were not encouraged to ignore 26 REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 7 BrickIin & Newman, LLP Attomevs at Lain 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suitc 3303 Seattle 1CA 98154 'I cl. (2(16) 264-8GUn Fas, (2(16) 26493(111 0 1 procedures by resorting to the courts. Mc Cart v. United States,395 U.S. 185, 89 S.Ct. 1657, 23 2 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969). 3 2. RNHG is in the process of exhausting its, administrative remedies and has 4 taken all requisite steps toward that end 5 As mentioned above, Wal -Mart's argument regarding exhaustion is both incorrect and 6 nonsensical. It is incorrect because RNHG has taken all requisite steps under the code to exhaust 7 administrative remedies. RNHG presented all of the issues that are currently on appeal to the 8 Hearing Examiner prior to filing this appeal. RNHG became aware of the project on or about May 9 10 17, 2010 for the first time. The group filed a timely request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 11 with the Hearing Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several grounds. See 12 Letter from Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010. The issues raised were the 1 same issues that are raised by appellants on appeal. Not only did RNHG participate before the 14 Examiner to the full extent necessary as required by the Code, but the policies underlying the 15 principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies have been fulfilled because the issues on appeal 16 17 were presented to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner considered the questions presented 18 and ruled on those questions on reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia 19 Newman dated July 10, 2010. Now, RNHG is presenting these issues to the Council on appeal as 20 the Code requires prior to any potential judicial review. The City Council has the benefit of 21 reviewing the Hearing Examiner's decision on those issues. 22 The argument that RNHG failed to exhaust its administrative remedies is nonsensical 23 because the City Council appeal that RNHG is pursuing with this briefing is the administrative 24 25 remedy provided by the Renton Code. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a judicial doctrine 26 requiring compliance with a City code appeal process before resorting to superior court. RNHG is Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomccs at Law REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 8 1""' F°Scatdc attiW° 544`` 3"' 1L"A 98154 Td. (206) 264-861 W Fax_ (2116)264-931w) 0 9 1 currently engaged in the requisite administrative process. RNHG is currently exhausting its 2 administrative remedies by pursuing this appeal with the City Council. The City Council's decision 3 will be final and thus a Court would rule that the administrative remedies have been exhausted if any 4 judicial appeal were fled. The requisite step provided as an administrative remedy in the Renton 5 6 Code for this site plan approval is an appeal to the City of Renton City Council. The Hearing 7 Examiner had original jurisdiction and there is no requirement in the Code that parties who seek an 8 appeal actually attend the hearing before the Hearing Examiner. 9 III. THE MERITS OF RNHG' S APPEAL 10 A. The Standard of Review for Legal Issues is Broader Than That for Factual Issues 11 There is an important distinction that must be recognized between appellate review of errors 12 in fact and appellate review of errors of law. Questions of fact call for the "substantial evidence" 13 14 standard that Wal-Mart repeatedly refers to in its response. Benchmark Land Co, v. City of 15 Battleground, 146 Wn.2d 685, 694, 49 P.3d 860 (2002). For example, when reviewing the 16 conclusion of how far the building is located from the street (100 feet? More?) or how many trips 17 will be generated by the store (600 trips? More?), the Council is reviewing a factual issue. 18 Questions of law, on the other hand, are reviewed under the "de novo" standard of review. Waste 19 Management of'Seattle, Inc, v. Utilities and Transp. Comm'n, 123 Wn.2d 621, 627,869 P.2d 1034 20 21 (1994). For example, questions regarding interpretation of provisions of the City Code are questions 22 of law. 23 The Renton Code states that if the Council determines that "a substantial error in fact or law 24 exists in the record, it may remand the proceeding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or it may 25 modify or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly." RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). "Substantial 26 error in law" is unusual wording that is not often (if ever) found in administrative review case law or REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 9 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Artornm at I.iw 1001 Fourth Avenue, Swim 330 Seattle WA 4B 154 l'el. (200,264-9601; Pax. (206) 264 93W 0 0 1 statutes. It must be distinguished from. the "substantial evidence" standard that Wal-Mart refers to. 2 The "substantial evidence" standard is solely for review of factual conclusions in case law and 3 appellate review statutes. 4 The distinction is important because an appellate body has greater authority to reverse the 5 6 lower tribunal on legal issues. The majority of issues presented in this appeal are questions of law, 7 not fact. Wal-Mart incorrectly suggests that the "substantial evidence standard" applies to every 8 issue and gives short shrift to the error of law standard and the Council's broad authority under that 4 standard. 10 B. The Desi rg � Regulations Do Not Supersede Code Provisions That Prohibit the Illeilal 11 Expansion of a Non -Conforming Stricture 12 As was set out in RNHG's Opening Brief, an illegally established building or structure may 13 remain only if certain conditions set forth in RMC 4-10-050 are met. Here, those conditions were 14 not met. Therefore, the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be 15 reversed on grounds that the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming 16 structure. 17 18 Wal-Mart presents the remarkable argument that RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) does not apply to 19 the Wal-Mart project because the Urban Design Regulations somehow supersede other provisions 20 of the Renton Municipal Code, including the non -conforming provisions. That is an incredible 21 statement that has no support whatsoever in the Code. It is a tortured reading of RMC 4-3- 22 100(B) that supports Wal -Mart's claim to say the least. 23 It is important that the complete language of the relevant Code provision be placed front and 24 25 center for the Council's review because it is only then that the Council can recognize the ill - 26 conceived nature of Wal -Mart's argument. The Urban Design Regulations state: Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attumcrx at law REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH — 10 1001 Fourth Avcnvc, 4« 33cr3 Scatllc 1�'A )81 54 Tut. (Zn6) 264-8601 Fax (2116) 2C4 -93x - 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 0 0 4-3-100 URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS: A. PURPOSE: 1. These urban design regulations are established in accordance with and to implement policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton Comprehensive Plan. These standards are divided into seven areas. a. Site design and building location; b. Parking and vehicular access-, C. Pedestrian environment; d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space; e. Building Architectural Design; f. Signage; g. Lighting. 2, This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the zones stated in subsection BI of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability, standards are provided. These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards. a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2047; Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008; Ord. 5531, 3-8-2010) B. APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS: 1. Applicability: Brickiin & Newman, LLP Attomei s at T,a� REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 1 1 1°`" Tau h Aven°`'s""e 3303 Seattle WA 99154 Tea. (2( 6) 264-8600 Fay. (21() 264 93W 0 0 1 a. The following development activities shall be required 2 to comply with the provisions of this Section: 3 i. All subdivisions including short plats; ii. All new structures; 4 iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g., to parking or storage lots); 5 iv. Conversion of a residential use to a nonresidential use; 6 V. Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations 7 of nonconforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050. g b. Any of the activities listed in subsection B 1 a of this Section and occurring in the following overlay areas or zone shall be 9 required to comply with the provisions of this section. Big box retail 10 as outlined below shall also be required to comply with the provisions of this section. 11 i. Mapped Overlays: This Section shall apply to all 12 development occurring in design districts as indicated on the Urban Design Districts map, subsection B3 of this Section. To clarify the 13 map, the Center Downtown (CD) Zone is located in District `A,' 14 South Renton and the Residential Multi -Family (RMF) zone located within the Center Village Land Use Designation are District 'B," and 15 the Urban Center — North Zones are located within District `C.' District 'C' also includes the Commercial/Office/Residential (COR) 16 Zone. Areas within Center Village Land Use Designation zoned Center Village (CV) shall comprise District `D.' 17 18 ii. Big Box Retail: This Section shall also apply to big- box ibbox retail use. In the Commercial Arterial (CA) zone, big -box retail 19 uses are subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District `D,' except in the Employment Area — Valley (EAV) south of 20 Interstate 405, where big -box retail uses must comply with design standards and guidelines specific to the Urban Center — North 21 (District 'C'). Big -box retail uses in the EAV south of Interstate 405 22 outside of the CA zone are not subject to Urban Design Regulations. 23 As you read through the Urban Design Regulations, you see that they are established to 24 implement the Comprehensive Plan and there are standards set forth for design that specify a 25 prescriptive manner in which design requirements may be met. RMC 4-3-100(A). In particular, 26 Section B addresses the applicability of the design regulations. That section indicates what types REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 12 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomers at F.an- t001 Fourth 'V CIIue, Suite 3303 Seattle %X'n 98154 Tel (2r16) 2.64-8010 Fes, (206: 264-9.300 0 I of development activities are required to comply with the design regulations. Nowhere does this 2 provision suggest that they supersede any other provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. 3 Nowhere does the Code state that these regulations supersede the nonconforming provisions in 4 RMC 4-10-050(A)(4). The Urban Design Regulations exist in addition to and on top of other 5 6 regulations in the Code as an "overlay." Not even the staff report adopts this incredible idea that 7 somehow projects are exempt from the non -conforming provisions by the Urban Design g Regulations. 9 The regulations plainly indicate that alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non - 10 conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050 are required to comply with the design 11 regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). There is no credible reading of that section to suggest in 12 any way that it somehow excuses alterations, enlargements, and restorations of non -conforming 13 14 structures from compliance with RMC 4-10-050. That section simply states that those types of 15 development activities must comply with the design regulations. In fact, it affirms that 16 alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures must follow RMC 4- 17 -17 10-050 in addition to complying with the design regulations. 18 Wal -Mart's argument that it is not required to comply with RMC 4-10-050(A)(4) 19 implicitly admits the obvious conclusion as was set forth in RNHG's Opening Brief that the 20 21 project is not in compliance with those requirements. The approval of the Wal-Mart project 22 should be reversed on this basis. 23 24 25 26 REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH — 13 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Arrome". at Law 1001 Fourth Avenuc, Suitc 3303 Seattle WA 98154 'I el. (2DO, 264 8600 ba.. (200) 26¢9301, LJ 1 2 C. The Design Regulations Do Not Supersede the Code's Maximum Frontage Setback Requirement 4 As was fully explained in RNHG's Opening Brief, the Hearing Examiner's decision 5 approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed because the project does not comply with the 6 maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code. 7 Wal-Mart again presents the same baffling argument that has absolutely no basis in the S Code to claim that Wal -Mart's proposal is not required to abide by setback requirements of the 9 10 Code because it is excused from doing so by the design regulations. Wal-Mart argues that the 11 "flexibility" in application of the design guidelines allows it to disregard the setback requirements 12 in an entirely different section of the Code. Even if the City Council believed that somehow the 13 Code allows a proposal to completely disregard the design regulations, that by no means also 14 allows a developer to disregard the setback requirements set forth in the CA zone. Wal -Mart's 15 interpretation is completely inconsistent with the plain language of the Renton Code for the same 16 17 reasons explained above with respect to the non -conforming provisions. 18 D, The Wal-Mart Proposal Violates the Design Regulations Applicable to District D 19 The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion proposal should be 20 reversed because the proposal violates the City's design regulations applicable to District D. 21 1. Evidence in the record shows overwhelmin lv that the proposal is 22 inconsistent with the design regulations 23 Wal-Mart argues that there is no evidence in the hearing record that shows the project does 24 not comply with the design guidelines. To the contrary, the evidence showing noncompliance is 25 overwhelming. The record could not be more clear — the Wal-Mart proposal is inconsistent with at 26 least 20 minimum standards in the design regulations. See Preliminary Report to the Examiner (Apr. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 14 Bricklin & Newman, LLP AnDmey.,' at Law 11101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 ti�atL WA 98154 Td. (216)2(A-86uu Fa, (2116) 264-93111] 0 9 1 27, 2010). In the Preliminary Report to the Examiner, the staff incorporated a table in its review of 2 compliance with District D Design Guidelines. Ick. Throughout the table, the staff reported 3 repeatedly that the project is "not compliant" with various minimum standards listed. Therefore, the 4 evidence is there and that is not the issue presented. The issue presented is whether the Code allows 5 6 that non-compliance and that is a legal issue, not a factual issue. 7 2. Substantial evidence is not the proper standard of review g Wal-Mart states "to overcome its burden of proof, RNHG must cite to substantial evidence 9 in the record.'' RMC 4-5-100(F)(9). Substantial evidence is not the correct standard to apply to 10 this issue. The question here is not one of whether the facts show that there are violations of the I1 regulations — clearly there are such violations. 12 The question presented is whether a proposal must comply with the design guidelines set 13 14 forth in RMC 4-3-100. That is a legal question requiring the Council to interpret the Renton 15 Code. 16 3. Compliance with the design regulations is mandatory 17 The issue presented by Wal-Mart is whether compliance with the design regulations is 18 mandatory or whether the code allows developers "flexibility" to disregard those standards. To 19 address that issue, we refer to the language of RMC 4-3-100(A), which is quoted in full in Section 20 21 III(B) of this brief. As was established in RNHG's Opening Brief, the design regulations repeatedly 22 state that the standards are required to be included in a redevelopment. This project, without 23 question, is required to comply with the design regulations applicable for District D. RMC 4-3- 24 100(13)(1)(b). 25 Wal-Mart and the Examiner are confusing the idea of optional compliance with prescriptive 26 standards. Both appear to believe that adherence to the design regulations is optional since the Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomm at LA" RL.PLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 15 1111 roSecaotttt le. 'q�\''914-IA 99`154 33"' "f'el. (a)6) 264 -KV) 7.as. (205) 254-9300 I Renton Code provision suggests that the decision maker has discretion in determining how the 2 guidelines are met. The decision maker does not have discretion in determining whether the 3 guidelines are met -- they must be met. There are simply allowances for creative design to meet 4 those standards. In this case, the standards were simply not met at all. There are no creative design 5 6 options to show that the prescriptive standard has been met in any way. The standards are identified 7 as "prescriptive," which means that there is flexibility in approach to meeting the end requirement. g But the requirement is a requirement — it must be met and it was not. 9 E. The Trip Generation Estimate for the Wal-Mart Expansion is Incorrect Because It 10 Fails to Consider the Known Trip Generation for This Project 11 As RNHG pointed out in its Opening Brief, the traffic report reveals that this particular Wal - 12 Mart produces far more than average traffic. RNHG has retained a traffic expert who will testify 13 that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing 14 source numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. Rather than counting traffic for 15 the existing store and analyzing the counts using those existing numbers, Transpo simply utilized the 16 ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too 17 18 low for this higher than average traffic producing site. 19 Wal-Mart argues that the City Council must reject RNHG's introduction of evidence into the 20 record on the grounds that it is prohibited by RMC 4-5-110(F)(5). In this case, the parties did not 21 receive notice of the hearing and, therefore, did not attend. The parties did learn of the proposal 22 within the reconsideration timeline and made a timely request for an opportunity to present the 23 evidence that it could not present at the hearing. It is within the City Council's jurisdiction and 24 25 ability to allow this evidence to be submitted. The traffic issues raised in RNHG's appeal are not 26 raised as SEPA issues, rather they are raised as issues related to the substantive permit approval. REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 16 Bricklin & Newman, LLP :%i OmCl't at La, ia)l Fourth A'- Umc, Suite 3303 S111L WA98154 d (200} 364-860n f -ax. (2066 264-)3ui 1 I Wal-Mart argues that the traffic claims raised by RNHG must be denied because the 2 evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's finding that RMC 4-9-200(E)(1)(f) was met. 3 RNHG recognizes that the evidence in the record supports the finding and RNHG's request is to 4 offer evidence that proves that his finding is incorrect. 5 6 Wal-Mart argues that RNHG is barred from raising issues relating to traffic because it failed 7 to appeal the MDNS. The Site Development Plan Review Criteria as set forth in Section 4-9-200 of 8 the Renton Municipal Code require mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses and 9 safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation. RNHG has a right to challenge the 10 appropriateness of the traffic impact study based on those provisions of the Code. 11 Dated this day of August, 2010. 12 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 BRICKLIN & NEWM LP 15 By: — Z Z 16 Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928 Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy 17 Growth RNHG\Reply Brief 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 REPLY BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH - 17 Bricklin & Newman, LLP Anomers aT I au- 11ttri Fourth Avenue, Suite 330.3 Seatti, NV'A 98154 Tcl- (2116)264-8600 Fa,. (206) 264-93(m 1 08/04/20--:0-WED 16:48 FAX 206 436 6740 Membership Copier Room 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 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVAL DECLARATION OF CINDY FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H WHEELER I, CINDY WHEELER, declare as follows: 12002/003 -. aw siECEIV Q iTv LffERK'S OFF ICE I . I am a member of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and I make this declaration based upon my own personal knowledge. I am over the age of 21 years old. 2. I live at 425 SW Fifth Place in Renton, Washington. My house is approximately 11,500 feet as the crow flies from the Wal-Mart proposal site. 3. 1 frequently use all of the shopping areas near my home. I regularly drive on Hardee Avenue SW, Rainier Avenue S, and SW Seventh Street, and SW Sunset Boulevard, which are all streets that will be impacted by the additional traffic that the Wal-Mart expansion will create. The existing traffic situation is very bad and adding to that traffic will adversely impact me. 4. One big concern that I have is the amount of panhandlers in the area. They are there because of the heavy traffic. The panhandlers frighten me and I try to avoid them as much as possible. Adding more traffic will increase this problem. DECLARATION OF CINDY WHEELER - 1 BrickUn & Newman, LLP Arwme7s at law loo! Fourth Avenue, S+we 3307 Seaak WA 98154 Tel. ('206)264-M Fax. (206) 264-1300 08/01/2a Q WED 16:0$ FAX 206 436 6700 Membership Copier Room 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 26 003/003 5. If the Wal-Mart area was better for walking and if the panhandlers were gone, I I would use and enjoy a more walkable shopping area. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated this LA_ day of August, 2010, at ( C.F . Washington. RNH=ec of Cindy Wheeler DECLAI ATION OF CINDY WHEELER - 2 CINDY WHEELER Bnicklin & Newman, LLP 1001 iwurth Avcnuc, Suitc 3343 5exale WA 98154 Tel. (206)264-96M Pax. (206) 264.9300 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 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H STATE OF WASHINGTON ) } ss. COUNTY OF KING } f ,41 ,CrY; CITY GLTRKS OFF;(: E_ i DECLARATION OF SERVICE L PEGGY S. CAHILL, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Bricklin & Newman, LLP, attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I caused the Reply Brief of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth and Declaration of Cindy Wheeler to be served on: City Clerk City of Renton 7t' Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ ] By United States Mail P(By Legal Messenger ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail ] By E -Mail DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomces A Law 1001 Fourth Avenue, Stutc 3303 Seattle',X A 98154 I'cl. (2136) 2648600 Fax. (206) 2649300 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • Julia Medzigian City Council Liaison City of Renton Mayor's Office 7th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ ] By United States Mail N'By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By E -Mail Lawrence J. Warren—lwarrenkc rentonwa.gov City of Renton 4 100 S. 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98457-0626 []� By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail { By E -Mail John C. McCullough — jackgmhseattle.com Jessica M. Clawson — Jessiemhseattle.com McCullough & Hill 701 5th Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 [ By United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [] By E -Mail s DATED this 5HA day of_ A� , 2014, at Seattle, Washington. T - . C'24'� PEGGY S. tAHILL Renton',Decsv- County Council DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Sriddin & Newman, LLP Atromeys at Lam Mit Fourth Avenue, Suite 330") Seattle k1 A 98154 1'cl, (206) 264 86IM1 Fax. (206) 26493gn 14 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 - - -,r-_', F', JFFiC J1, BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH 1. INTRODUCTION The Hearing Examiner improperly approved Wal -Mart's proposal to expand its existing store on Rainier Avenue South. The proposal is for an illegal expansion of a nonconforming structure and the proposal violates many provisions in the City Code. The Examiner was apparently under the mistaken impression that the Code allows a non -conforming structure to be expanded and still remain nonconforming, The Examiner acknowledged that the project was inconsistent with certain Code provisions, but approved it nonetheless because, as he characterized it: .. , while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHYArtomevs at La„ 1001 Fourth Avenue, Swte 33(13 GROWTH- 1 Seartle WA 98134 1 { Tel. (2()6)264-861J0 Fa. (206) 2(,4 931x] LAA -A `� 11 21' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16) (hereinafter referred to as "Examiner Decision"). Therefore, instead of requiring that Wal-Mart conform to the current Code requirements, the Examiner imagined that "it might be nice" if Wal-Mart would comply with the current Code and expressed a hope that the "next remodel" would be better. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in any future remodel is a lost hope considering that Wal -Mart's experience so far has been an approval despite being inconsistent with the regulations as they exist today. There is simply no legal basis for the Examiner's Decision to approve the Wal-Mart expansion. The City's obligation and duty is to require that the development be consistent with the Code. When regulations are not met, the project must either be changed or denied. If a proposal cannot meet certain code requirements, the developer has the option of requesting amendments to the Code through the legislative process before submitting a proposal. RNHG requests that the City Council reverse the Hearing Examiner's approval of the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan and deny the proposal for the reasons expressed herein. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES A. Whether the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming structure. B. Whether the Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed because the proposal does not comply with the maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code. OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH- 2 Bricklin & Newman, LLP !lttomeys at Law 11N71 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3,703 Seattle X 'A 99154 Tel (206) 264-8600 Pa. (2()6) 264-93(K) 0 0 1 C. Whether the Hearing Examiner decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion 2 proposal should be reversed because it violates the City's design regulations applicable to District 3 D in RMC 4-3-100. 4 D. Whether the City Council should reverse the Hearing Examiner decision and, if 5 6 necessary after deciding the above issues, remand the Hearing Examiner's decision with 7 instructions that the Hearing Examiner receive and review evidence concerning the predicted trip 8 generation for the expansion and that he issue a new decision on that issue. 9 III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 10 A. The Wal-Mart Expansion Proposal 11 On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Pacland filed an application. on February S, 2010 for 12 Site Plan review of a proposal to expand and convert the existing Wal-Mart Discount Store 13 14 located at 743 Rainier Avenue South into a Superstore. AR Ex. L' The existing Wal-Mart 15 contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the 16 Garden Center. Id. (Preliminary Report to the Examiner). The proposal for the new Superstore 17 proposes to add 16,000 square feet to the retail space and reduce the Garden Center by 4,000 18 square feet. Id. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745 19 surface parking stalls, and a 4,701 square foot Garden Center. Id. 20 21 The project site is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial 22 (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations within Urban Design District "D," Id. 23 24 25 "AR" refers to the administrative record before the Hearing Examiner. The Examiner identified 26 and numbered exhibits from the April 27, 2010 hearing in his decision. Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY """rnG'Su' 1{1111 14;urth •Ice nuv, e, Sure 3363 GROWTH- 3 Seatlr WA 98154 Tel. (24,) 264-Mou 1-a� (206) 264 9300 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 B. The City's Review of the Proposal A public hearing was held before the City of Renton Hearing Examiner on Tuesday, April 27, 2010. Examiner Decision at 1. After hearing testimony and reviewing evidence, the Examiner issued a decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan on May 13, 2010. Id. Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth (RNHG) became aware of the project on or about May 17, 2010. The group filed a timely request for reconsideration on May 27, 2010 with the Hearing Examiner asking that the Examiner reconsider his decision on several grounds. See Letter from Claudia M. Newman to Fred Kaufman dated May 27, 2010, The Examiner responded to that request on June 10, 2010 indicating that he would not alter the original decision and that he was denying RNHG's request for reconsideration. See Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia Newman dated July 10, 2010. This appeal followed. IV. ARGUMENT A. The City Council _Has_ Authority_ to Reverse the Examiner's Decision When the Decision is Based on a Substantive Error in Fact or Law Any interested party aggrieved by the Examiner's written decision may submit a notice of appeal to the City Council requesting review. RMC 4-8-110(F)(1).2 After examination of the record, if the Council determines that a substantial error in fact or law exists in the record, it may remand the procceding to the Examiner for reconsideration, or modify, or reverse the decision of the Examiner accordingly. RMC 4-8-110(F)(7). The consideration by the City Council shall be based solely upon the record, the Hearing Examiner's report, the Notice of Appeal, and additional submissions by parties. RMC 4-8- 2 There is no legal requirement that an appellant attend or testify at the hearing before the Examiner. BricUn & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY �rdi A'' ue. Su 1411p FnurLh.Asenuc. Suite 3303 GROWTH- 4 Seattle WA 98154 '1'cl. (20) 26"6141 Faa, 01(1) 264-9301) I 110(F)(6). No public hearing shall be held by the City Council. No new or additional evidence 2 or testimony shall be accepted by the Council unless a showing is made by the party offering 3 evidence that the evidence could not reasonably have been available at the time of the hearing 4 before the Examiner. RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). If the Council determines that additional evidence is 5 6 required, the Council shall remand the matter to the Examiner for reconsideration and receipt of 7 additional evidence. Id. g B. The Wal-Mart proposal is an Illegal Expansion of a Nan -Conforming Structure 9 The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion should be reversed 10 because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non -conforming structure 11 per RMC 4-10-050. A legally established building or structure may remain if it does not conform 12 with the provisions of the Renton Municipal Code, but only if certain conditions are met, 13 14 including the following: 15 3. Alterations: A legal nonconforming structure shall not be altered beyond the limitations specified below: 16 a. Structures With Rebuild Approval Permits: Alteration 17 work exceeding an aggregate cost of one hundred percent (100%) 18 of the value of the building or structure shall be allowed if: 19 (1) the building or structure is made conforming by the alterations; or 20 (2) the alterations were imposed as a condition of 21 granting a rebuild approval permit; or 22 (3) alterations are necessary to restore to a safe 23 condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall not result in or increase any 24 non -conforming conditions unless they were specifically imposed as a condition of granting a rebuild approval permit, pursuant to 25 RMC 4-9-120. 26 Bricklin & Ncwman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 11KIl FQu�m%-C WierS�ite3303 GROWTH- 5 Svxnle XVA 99154 Tel (306) 264-8600 Fac. (206) 264 9300 0 9 1 b. Other Legal Nonconforming Structures: The cost of the alterations shall not exceed an aggregate cost of fifty percent (50%) 2 of the value of the building or structure, based upon its most recent assessment or appraisal, unless the amount over fifty percent (50%) is used to make the building or structure more conforming, or is 4 used to restore it to a safe condition any portion of a building or structure declared unsafe by a proper authority. Alterations shall 5 not result in or increase any nonconforming condition. 6 4. Enlargement: The structure shall not be enlarged unless 7 the enlargement is conforming or it is consistent with the provisions of a rebuild approval permit issued for it. 8 RMC 4-10-050(A). Thus, as the final provision above states, the Code forbids enlarging a non - 9 10 conforming structure unless the enlargement is conforming or unless it is consistent with the 1 I conditions of a rebuild approval permit. 12 The provision quoted above does not allow Wal-Mart to expand its facility as proposed. 13 The existing Wal-Mart is a non -conforming structure and Wal-Mart is not seeking, nor has it 14 received, a rebuild approval permit. The enlargement is non -conforming because it violates the 15 City's maximum frontage setback requirement of 15 feet and because it violates several design 16 17 requirements required in District D (as is explained in greater detail in Section B herein). 18 The provision above makes it clear that alterations are not allowed unless they make the 19 structure conforming. Therefore, even if Wal-Mart was pursuing alterations and not an 20 expansion of the structure, it would be forbidden from doing so if the alterations do not make the 21 structure conforming. 22 The City staff and the Examiner completely disregarded the limitations and prohibitions 23 against enlarging or altering nonconforming structures in RMC 4-10-050. The Examiner's 24 Decision states: 25 26 The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1tomeyti atLu 14101 Puurth :1��enue, Suitc 33113 GROWTH- 6 Seattle %VA 98154 Tei. (206) ae4-9600 Fad (206) 264431rn 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 i 0 the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Examiner's Decision at 16 (¶ 3). There is no acknowledgment of the existence of RMC 4-10-050 by the Examiner in his conclusion. RNHG pointed out that the proposal constituted an illegal expansion of a non -conforming I use in its request for reconsideration. In his response, the Examiner concluded that the expansion was allowed by the design regulations. But the Examiner's reading of the design regulation that he refers to is somewhat baffling because it clearly does not say what the Examiner claims that it says. The section referred to by the Examiner says, in so many words, that alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-1.0-050 are required to comply with the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1). That means that an enlargement of a non -conforming structure must comply with the design regulations. That's it. The design regulations certainly do not say that enlargements of non -conforming structures that remain non -conforming are allowed despite the plain language of RMC 4-10-050. The Hearing Examiner's decision approving the Wal-Mart expansion was in error and should be reversed because the Wal-Mart proposal is an illegal enlargement of an existing non- conforming structure per RMC 4-10-050. OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH- 7 Sricklin & Newman, LLP Attomcvs at Law 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3303 Seattle)kA 98154 Tel. (21 6) 2k4-86(10 Fac (2116) 26493110 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 C. The Wal-Mart.. Expansion Project Violates Several Requirements of the Renton Code 1. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's maximum frontage setback, requirement The Wal-Mart proposal should have been denied by the Hearing Examiner because it does not comply with the 15 foot maximum frontage setback requirement in the Renton City Code. The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) on the City of Renton zoning map.' The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning and pedestrian orientation, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment with greater densities. RMC 4-2-010(L). The CA zoning designation requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. RMC 4-2-120A. For the proposal, the front street was considered Hardy Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. ISR 167. The proposed structure would be setback from the front property line approximately 555 feet at the closest point, from the Garden Center to Hardy Avenue SW. Therefore, the proposed structure does not comply with the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. The maximum setback limit may be modified by the reviewing official through the site development plan review process, but only if the applicant can demonstrate that the site development plan: (a) Orients development to the pedestrian through such measures as providing pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), encouraging pedestrian Because only a small portion of the site is Medium Industrial (IM), the staff decided to review the project only under the Commercial Arterial (CA) requirements. RNHG does not necessarily agree with this approach, but, for practical purposes, it did not ultimately affect the project. Sricklin & Newman, LLP rt`ar auOPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1(7 I�ouYh Avenue, Suirc 33(1.9 GROWTH- 8 Searrlc %('A 98134 Tel. (206) 2648601 1`a . (2116) 2649300 I amenities and supporting alternatives to single occupant vehicle 2 (SOV) transportation; and 3 (b) Creates a low scale streetscape through such measures as fostering distinctive architecture and mitigating the visual 4 dominance of extensive and unbroken parking along the street front; and 5 6 (c) Promotes safety and visibility through such measures as discouraging the creation of hidden spaces, minimizing conflict 7 between pedestrian and traffic and ensuring adequate setbacks to accommodate required parking and/or access that could not be g provided otherwise. 9 RMC 4-2-120C(15). This provision was not addressed by the Department of Community and 10 Economic Development in its Report to the Examiner, nor was it addressed by the Hearing 11 Examiner in his decision approving the proposal. Both simply allowed a violation of the setback 12 requirement without any review of the criteria listed above. 13 14 The site development plan does not meet the criteria listed above. It is not surprising that 15 Wal-Mart did not ever purport to make any showing on this issue, considering that the proposal, 16 as it is, simply cannot meet those criteria. The proposal is a typical Wal-Mart with a "sea of 17 asphalt" (as the Hearing Examiner described it) between the store front and the street. The 18 proposal is for a big box superstore that is oriented to cars, not pedestrians. It does not encourage 1.9 pedestrian amenities, support alternatives to single occupancy vehicle transportation, or provide 20 21 pedestrian walkways beyond those required by the Renton Municipal Code. It does not create a 22 low scale streetscape and adopts no distinctive architecture or mitigation of the visual dominance 23 of extensive and unbroken parking along the street front. The proposal does not promote safety 24 by minimizing conflicts between pedestrians and traffic — pedestrians must utilize make -shift 25 walkways that have been created in the parking lot to get to the store. It is obvious that the 26 development is promoting driving cars over walking to the store. The enormous parking lot, Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY 1001 14rurte aah"mev"` �t Law enue, Suite 3313 GROWTH- 9 scattle %K A 98154 TO. (2116) 264-8010 Pa . (206) 264931N1 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 0 which fills the setback between the street front and the store, is precisely the opposite of those criteria listed above. The Examiner did not review these criteria or review the record to determine whether these criteria had been met. He instead determined that it was simply impractical for Wal-Mart to meet the setback requirement because the existing structure was already so far away from the street. He surmised that the trade-off of allowing a violation of the setback requirement was okay because it was "modest" and a "reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store." That the expansion is "well-designed" or "modest" is certainly up for debate, but regardless, neither is an adequate justification for allowing a violation of the setback requirement.4 The Decision should be reversed on the grounds that the proposal violates the 15 foot maximum setback requirement (and a non -conforming structure cannot be enlarged unless it is made conforming). 2. The Wal-Mart proposal violates the City's Design Regulations The Wal-Mart expansion is subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-050(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a regulatory vision for what development should look like. It is obvious when reviewing the requirements that the City has adopted these requirements with an eye towards replacing the current look of commercial areas in District "D" with more vibrant, walkable, pedestrian -friendly retail areas. That vision echoes the goal and intent of the CA zoning. See RMC 4-2-020(L). 4 The question of whether the 15 foot maximum setback requirement makes sense in this situation cannot be considered by the quasi-judicial body. In a quasi-judicial matter, the Hearing Examiner and the City Council must apply the code as it is written. If Wal-Mart cannot expand its building because it is non -conforming and because of the maximum setback requirement, then it must seek an amendment to the Code through the legislative process before applying for an expansion. Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY r6 A c n`Law 10(}1 Fourth renuc, Suite 3303 GROWTH- 10 scatdc ,� A 98154 Ta (21)6) 26"600 F'Rx. (206) 264931w] I. The design elements, which include an intent statement, standards, and guidelines, are 2 "required to be included in all development." RMC 4-3-100(A)(2) (emphasis supplied). 3 Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of non -conforming structures pursuant to RMC 4- 4 10-050 are required to comply with the urban design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1). Big box 5 6 retail in the Commercial Arterial zone is required to comply with the design regulations 7 applicable for District D. RMC 4.3.100(B)(l)(b). There can be no doubt that this proposal must g comply with the Urban Design Regulations. 9 The Urban Design Regulations were established in accordance with and to implement 10 policies established in the Land Use and Community Design Elements of the Renton 1l Comprehensive Plan. RMC 4-3-100(A)(1). The design regulations are divided into the 12 following seven areas: site design and building locations; parking and vehicular access; 13 14 pedestrian environment; recreation areas and common open space; building architectural design; 15 signage; and lighting. 16 The intent and goals of these requirements are expressed in each section. Some of the 17 relevant sections state: 18 (Site design and building locations) Intent: To ensure that 19 buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for high 20 density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity 21 throughout the district. 22 (Building location and orientation) Intent: To ensure visibility of 23 businesses, establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that 24 pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to 25 other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and 26 definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses in Bricklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY ]tt m v'c Lam' Y 111(}1 1=autlh Ascnuc, $viIr 33U3 GROWTH- 11 Seatdc WA 98154 Td. (2,6)264-8601) F: %. (2116) 264-9311D 1 the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. 2 3 (Building entries) Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further 4 the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. 5 6 (Pedestrian environment) Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by 7 creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from the streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian g environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access 9 points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi - 10 modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. I1 (Pedestrian amenities) Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify 12 the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas 13 that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and 14 ander typical seasonal weather conditions. 15 (Building architectural design) Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a 16 human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise 17 retail architecture. 18 (Parking and vehicular access) Intent: To maintain active 19 pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. 20 21 These are just a few samples of the intent statements throughout the design requirements. 22 They provide a general feeling of the vision that Renton has for this area. Each of these intent 23 statements are followed by minimum regulatory standards to carry out the vision. The goal is to 24 establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). 25 Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be 26 encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of BricUn & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Aut,m 'C Lai ]f>I11 frouah Aarnuc, Juin 33113 GROWTH— 12 scatacWA 98154 Td. (2t16) 264 -WA, F:,% (2x.16) 264-930n 0 0 1 the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature 2 of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots is to be minimized and active 3 pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. 4 The Wal -Marl expansion does not meet the City's vision nor does it meet the specific 5 6 regulatory requirements that were enacted to carry out this vision. What we have is a typical 7 Wal-Mart Big Box expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Superstore with franchise retail 8 architecture and a "sea of asphalt" located between the building and the front property line. Wal - 9 Mart has drawn lines for some "pedestrian" paths in the parking lot as an afterthought simply to 10 say they are there. But it is not a pedestrian -oriented design by any measure. The proposal is for 11 exactly the opposite of what the City requires in its regulations. Approval of the proposal 12 undermines the City's attempt to change the area. 13 14 The Examiner's Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the 15 proposal's compliance with Design District D' guidelines. Examiner Decision at 7-16 (T28). 16 The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal 17 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of 18 approval are met." 7d. at 7. That is simply not the case. The table itself shows that the Wal-Mart 19 proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. 20 21 Looking closely at the other requirements, it is evident that the proposal is out of compliance with 22 even more minimum standards than those 20 identified. Overall, the proposal must be denied 23 because of these numerous inconsistencies with the design requirements. 24 The Examiner seemed to believe that adherence to the design regulations is optional. The 25 provisions do "allow latitude" but not to the extent that a developer may be out of compliance. 26 The standards are identified as "prescriptive," which means that there is flexibility in the Brieklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY ''tth Ave u , Su lUf}1 Pourth:h•enuc,Swtc 3303 GROWTH- 13 S"ttl,.„,, 98154 Ttl. (2i}6) 264-8(inn Fac. (206) 264-7300 �J L 1 approach toward meeting the end requirement. But the requirement is a requirement — it must be 2 met as is stated time and time again in the urban design regulations. See RMC 4-3-100(A)(2), RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a), RMC 4-3-100(13){1)(b)(ii). While creative design alternatives may be 4 allowed, the ultimate end must be met. Here, they simply were not met in many, many respects. 5 6 D. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Trip Generation Characteristics of the Site 7 The estimate in the Hearing Examiner's decision for future trip generation of the Wal - 8 Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into 9 10 consideration. In the Examiner's Decision, he found as follows: 11 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts 12 of those additional trips. 13 Examiner Decision at 7 (¶ 23). 14 A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo Group, dated October, 2009, was 15 submitted by Wal-Mart. The traffic study concluded that the proposal would generate 608 16 17 additional daily trips. The Hearing Examiner required a transportation mitigation fee based on 18 $75 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 19 new daily trips anticipated, was estimated at $45,600. 20 RNHG has retained a traffic expert who will testify that when a proposal involves an 21 existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip 22 generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE 23 predictions, he will demonstrate that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% 24 25 higher) than the average discount store of that size. The traffic report for the project revealed that 26 this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering Brieklin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY Att°°"" at'"a"' 'lnp] Founh A1•cnuc, Suitc 3303 GROWTH- 14 ScatEc WA 98154 lei (21 6) 2648600 Pax. (206) 264-93(KT I that RNHB members have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in 2 Washington State. He will testify that the store would no doubt continue to generate higher than 3 average counts after the expansion. 4 It is clear from looking at the traffic study that Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, did 5 6 not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze 7 the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE 8 numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too 9 low for this higher than average traffic producing site. 10 A new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far 11 higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 12 RNHG raised this issue in its request for reconsideration. The Hearing Examiner stated 13 14 that the request was untimely: 15 The issue should have been raised during the course of the public bearing or in comments submitted in advance of the hearing. 16 Subsequent to the close of the public hearing, the only new information that may be submitted is information that was not 17 reasonably available at the public hearing. If the traffic counts 18 were indeed wrong, that was information that would have been reasonably available at the time of the public hearing and should 19 have been introduced in a timely fashion. 20 Letter from Fred Kaufman to Claudia M. Newman dated Jun. 10, 2010 at 1. 21 The City of Renton Code allows "any interested person feeling that the decision of the 22 Examiner is based on errors of fact or errors in judgment may make a written application for 23 review within 14 days after the written decision of the Examiner has been rendered." RMC 4-8- 24 25 100(G)(4). There is no requirement that the requesting party have attended the hearing in order 26 to request reconsideration or appeal a decision. Briddin & Newman, LLP OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY u,6 Av' u , SU 4c F-nurdi ,Arcnuc, 4uiLc 33113 GROWTH— 15 slatdc �t'A 98154 Tcl (206) 264-861V1 i -as. (Z)6) 264-9300 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 0 0 The Examiner has the jurisdiction to recognize an error in fact or error in judgment and call for further action as the Examiner deems proper, including the receipt of additional evidence on a subject that may have been improperly examined at the hearing. RNHG is pointing out an erroneous conclusion and erroneous assumptions that were made at the previous hearing. The Examiner points out that the only new information that may be submitted is information that was not reasonably available at the public hearing. This is also the standard applicable to the City Council's review as stated in RMC 4-8-110(F)(5). In this case, the parties did not receive notice of the hearing and, therefore, did not attend. The parties did learn of the proposal within the reconsideration time line and made a timely request for an opportunity to present the evidence that it could not present at the hearing. It is within the City's jurisdiction and ability to allow this evidence to be submitted. The Hearing Examiner also concluded that the reconsideration request did not "show that the projections were erroneous." The Examiner indicated that the "only thing submitted was conjecture about the projections." As RNHG stated before, RNHG has retained a traffic expert who will testify that the projections were erroneous and the group is simply requesting the opportunity to present that testimony. V. CONCLUSION In conclusion, RNHG requests that the Renton City Council reverse (and remand, if necessary) the Examiner's Decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval for the reasons stated above. OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH- 16 Bricklin & Newman, LLP _ittomm at Lair IV11 Fourth Avcnuc, Suitc 3303 Scattic %X'21 98154 Tel (206) 264861111 Fax. (21)6) 264-93M 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 C Dated this�� da of f July, 2010. RentonlOpening Brief 0 Respectfully submitted, BRICKLIN & NEWMAN, LLP By: Claudia M. Newman, WSBA No. 24928 Attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth OPENING BRIEF OF RENTON NEIGHBORS FOR HEALTHY GROWTH- 17 B6cldin & Newman, LLP Attomm at l.aw 1601 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3343 Seattle WA 93154 Tel. (206) 26436011 Fax. (206) 264-9310 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 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF RENTON IN RE: WALMART EXPANSION SITE PLAN APPROVAL FILE NO.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H DECLARATION OF SERVICE IS Cii_RK'S 0 Fie STATE OF WASHINGTON } } ss. COUNTY OF KING } I, PEGGY S. CAHILL, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, declare as follows: I am the legal assistant for Bricklin & Newman, LLP, attorneys for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth herein. On the elate and in the manner indicated below, I caused Opening Brief of Renton Neighbors for Health Growth to be served on: City Clerk City of Renton 7th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ ] By United States Mail By Legal Messenger [ By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By E -Mail DECLARATION OF SERVICE - I Bricklin & Newman, LLP Attomevs at lain I IK31 Fourth avenue, wire 3.303 Seattle WA 98854 Tel. (21 6) 264 800h Fa%. (206) 26493011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • Julia Medzigian City Council Liaison City of Renton Mayor's Office 7th Floor 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 [ ] By United States Mail By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail [ ] By E -Mail Lawrence J. Warren—lwarren�rentonwa.gov City of Renton 100 S. 2nd Street P.O. Box 626 Renton, WA 98057-0626 IVY United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail WY E -Mail Jahn C. McCullough — jack(-q),mhseattle.com Jessica M. Clawson — Jessica mhseattle.eom McCullough & Hill 701 5`h Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 kBy United States Mail [ ] By Legal Messenger [ ] By Facsimile [ ] By Federal Express/Express Mail .[j -By E -Mail DATED this t 64" day of TU� �4= 2010, at Seattle, Washington. PEGGY S. AHILL RentonlDecsv- County Council DECLARATION OF SERVICE - 2 Briddin & Newman, LLP Attoatcvs at Law 1(101 1Tonrth Avenue, Suite 3303 Se -attic WA 98154 'rel. (206) 264-80v) Pax. (JlO 264-93n( July 12, 2010 Renton City Council Minutes 1191 Page 211 AUDIENCE COMMENT Greg James (Sammamish), speaking on behalf of RAMAC, Inc., owner of the Citizen Comment: James - Riviera Apartments, expressed concerns regarding the proposed Shoreline Proposed Shoreline Master Master Program (SMP) as it relates to future redevelopment of their apartment Program complex. Mr. James stated that a river -walk style redevelopment of the site is preferred and that the SMP's proposed height limitations and shoreline buffers and setbacks are problematic for that type of redevelopment. He remarked that he submitted changes to the SMP that he believes will resolve his concerns. He expressed appreciation for the additional time that was granted for reviewing the SMP. Citizen Comment: Simpson - Anne Simpson (Renton), speaking on behalf of the Renton Shoreline Coalition, Proposed Shoreline Master expressed appreciation for the additional time allotted to the SMP process. She Program stated that several members of their steering committee met with City staff and conducted a productive meeting_ Ms_ Simpson remarked that the Renton Shoreline Coalition would like to be able to strongly support Renton's SMP as it goes forward to the Department of Ecology. CONSENT AGENDA Items listed on the consent agenda are adopted by one motion which follows the listing. Council Meeting Minutes of Approval of Council meeting minutes of 6/28/2010. Council concur. 6/28/2010 City Clerk: 2010 Renton City Clerk reported the official population of the City of Renton as of 4/1/2010 Population to be 86,230 as calculated by the State of Washington Office of Financial Management_ Information. Appeal: Wal-Mart Expansion City Clerk reported appeal of Hearing Examiners decision regarding the Wal - Site Plan, Renton Neighbors Mart Expansion Site Plan by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, represented for Healthy Growth, SA -10-00.9 by Claudia Newman, attorney, accompanied by required fee. Refer to Planning and Development Committee. CAG: 10-067, Logan Av N City Clerk reported bid opening on 6/15/2010 for CAG -10-067, Logan Ave. N_ Stage 2 Lake Washington Stage 2 Lake Washington Trail South Lake Connector project; ten bids; South Lake Connector, EnD engineer's estimate $914,333.50; and submitted staff recommendation to General Construction award the contract to low bidder, EnD General Construction, Inc., in the amount of $878,600.36. Refer to Finance Committee for discussion of funding. CED: Future Library Site Community and Economic Development Department requested authorization Evaluation & Downtown to appropriate $63,000 of the Library Fund for the evaluation of potential Library Structure Analysis, library sites and completion of a structural engineering analysis of the existing 2010 Budget Amendment Downtown Library. Refer to Finance Committee. Community Services: Parks, Community Services Department recommended approval of a contract in the Recreation, Open Space & amount of $211,000 with SvR to complete the six-year update to the Parks, Natural Resources Plan Recreation, Open Space, and Natural Resources Plan, and approval to transfer Update, SvR $50,000 from the 1-405/Talbot Rd. Streetscape Improvements fund to cover the budget gap_ Refer to Finance Committee. Lease: Addendum, Lane Transportation Systems Division recommended approval of an addendum to Hangar Condominium airport lease LAG -99-003, with Lane Hangar Condominium Association, to Association, LAG -99-003 increase the total ground lease rate per appraisal to $25,646.92 annually through 7/31/2013. Council concur. 0 CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL Subject/Title: Meeting: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May Regular Council - 12 Jul 2010 13, 2010 re: the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan; 743 Rainier Ave S. Application (File No. LUA-10- 009 SA -H, ECF) Exhibits: Submitting Data: Dept/Div/Board: City Cleric's appeal notification letter (6/29/2010), Response Executive to Request for Reconsideration (6/10/2010), Request for Reconsideration & Appeal from Renton Neighbors for Staff Contact: Healthy Growth by their Attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502 & Newman, LLP (5/27/2010), Hearing Examiner's Decision Recommended Action: Refer to Planning and Development Committee. Fiscal Impact: Expenditure Required: $ N/A Transfer Amendment: $ N/A Amount Budgeted: $ N/A Revenue Generated: $ NIA Total Project Budget: $ N/A City Share Total Project: $ N/A SUMMARY OF ACTION: Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan; 743 Rainier Av S. was filed on May 27, 2010, by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, represented by their attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP., accompanied by the required $250.00 fee. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council to take action on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan appeal. Denis Law Mayor City Of; City Cleric Bonnie !.Walton June 29, 20117 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for-Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP.. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010,:regarding Site Plan Review & Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart buildin& known as Wa.i-Mart Expansion Site Plan; 743 Rainier AVS. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City .Code of Ordinances, written. appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been flied with the City. Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the. notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal_ Otherparties of record may . submit letters limited tosupport .oftheir positions regardingthe.appeal within ten .(10) days of the date of mailing of this notification_ The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00.p-m., Monday, July 9, 2010_ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other.petinent.documents will be reviewed by the CDuncil's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 .m.. on Thursday, August 12, 20.10, in the Council Chambers, 7t�Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation. of the Committee will. be presented for consideration by the full Councilat a subsequent Council meeting. Copy.of the appeal and the -Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing-can be made that additional-evidence could not reasonably have-been available at th-e prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence-or testimon on this matter will be accepted by the City Council.. For additional information or assistance, 'please call me at 425-430-651.0. Sincerely, Bonnie 1. Walton City Clerk Attachments 1055 South Grady Way* Renton, Washington 98057 (425} 430-6510 /'Fax (425)430-6516- rentonwa.gov 0 Reply to: Seattle Office May 27, 2010 Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free_ 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com Cn Y OF RENTON MAY 2'7 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE via ,ABG lir / Cour1er Re; Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H NOTICE OF APPEAL Dear Clerk. Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal- Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing fee. I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth_ Pease direct all communication through rae regarding this matter. Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and, therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make this explicit – there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore, in the interest of extreme caution, I am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, $ IN & WMAN, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc C.'. �--c c.1 11�x�.r rte. , C. 4., Vi .-1« —{ \ 9 Enclosure Fria r',10 � Brickling Seattle Office: Spokane Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 Wesi Main Suite 3303 Suite 300 Newman Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 UP Reply to: Seattle Office May 27, 2010 Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free_ 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com Cn Y OF RENTON MAY 2'7 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE via ,ABG lir / Cour1er Re; Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H NOTICE OF APPEAL Dear Clerk. Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal- Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing fee. I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth_ Pease direct all communication through rae regarding this matter. Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and, therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make this explicit – there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore, in the interest of extreme caution, I am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, $ IN & WMAN, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc C.'. �--c c.1 11�x�.r rte. , C. 4., Vi .-1« —{ \ 9 Enclosure Fria r',10 � CITY OF RENTON APPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL MAY 2 7 2010 OF FIFQRING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RLCOMMENDATION RECEIVED �s OFFICE APPLICATION NAME Wa /rrr.� E �.� s a., St lk" Pf., �, 1#p �aro� NO. bz �'! S,¢ - f The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated M A r 13 —20/0 1. IDEM INCATION OF PARTY APPELLANT': Name: 9,e•+1y.t Address: 11 e4n011z ahclpld;_ 6,0.,�{v, 112 S 5 9-4- PI Ac.L e4l'(V n r PhoneNumber: 1(1/90977— `0-0 Email: A 1A REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: el O 4,A lot /1%rylti,i Address: 6✓ 4,k-v'n AIGz✓ .+ /or/ �l[[fi' A Svrk _Ie3a3 sz__� Phone Numbe}a6y- Y,�ov wR -fslsY Email: Qom,.✓ m .rte 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error ._�nti►rrtr.� Gori I.f.�+h�.! -{�,. f7-re,¢r�-f�o�. Ptcas4- R,4d .t 1! 544- .r hls� r, u �(_ lGtfY {r ff G.: 7 ,�, ' G.t, : v frj,_ ,-j,0..0 r�i i /• �rjo.& °,j f Correction: a.*x 4-1— X 1'GA Y %at rcd VA lsi, o Conclusions: No. 3 Error. ori SIVA, Correction: 5 ife- a f &L,4,^/ I /, CIT �1SPrfiL SlJ�jie NO`at//]�� Other - No. z8 Error: A .f w E ales r � ✓r'af�a,� dt�i' �-, P1ZAre 5[c l� :�rrcG� Correction: P1e#*SC f "ts 6e 14e 4 r'r, 3. SY OF ACTION REQUESTED The City Council is requested to grant the foHowin relief: (Attach explanation, if desirrd) ►� Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DGrs f 61,e P,p a5,40, ✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: Pu6,cAse, Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows:_Z crcr�U r4+� na VZ2,-�_ r ` dsvr 1'.c def P 7., �p p Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please rcfcr to Title iV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-&-110F, fo:r specific appeal procedures. • Reply to: Seattle Office Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Seattle Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue Suite 3343 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane Office: 35 West Main Suite 300 Spokane,WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Tall Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -14 Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision").. I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what 1 have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have trot yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. The Triv Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: 0 Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (T!23). The .traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several reguirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states; The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the LI Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page.3 tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (1 3). .As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements_ Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-1000. Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design, Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking Iots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the . building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations -- approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (T28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I 0 Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 9 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous Liconsistcacies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance... . "Big Box" appears to invite `Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (T 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. Very truly yours, BRI IN & , LLP (X Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, 9509 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT/APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H 743 Rainier Ave S May 13, 2010 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site PIan Review for the construction of a additions to the existing Waimart retail facility, which would include 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUN04 RY OF ACTTON: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 20, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report•; examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The fallowing minutes are a sumrnmy of the April 27, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9.00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affrmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map application, reports, staff comments and other documentation rtinent to this request. • May 13, 2010 Page 2 9 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7's Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Waimart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,040 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filled. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone_ The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback, however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break. up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees_ Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Tree InventoEy Plan Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 8: Large Page Short Plat Plan (9 pages) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7's Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Waimart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,040 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filled. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone_ The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback, however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fagade to break. up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees_ Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street 0 May I3, 2014 Page 3 • frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is being done in the parking area_ Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 parking stalLs are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 3 0,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements. Fire and Traffic'mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to 30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion. Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project_ Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion of the structure to SW 7'h Street_ The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing and new Lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code. A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic feet per second, therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment Most of the mininnum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fagade. A building materials and colors board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided. May 13, 2010 Page 4 Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 7015 th Avenue, Ste_ 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site_ There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary.in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward. In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7`b, which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was Iocated. Usunobun Osage, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Da]_las, TX 75202 stated that they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion. Jack McCullough stated that they were going to lake an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make the project better. Kayren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short Plat, All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject to final review and permitting. May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were Subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one_ The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMNEENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 41. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS-Np. 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 5. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subj ect site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Macs. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive PIan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959 10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded. 11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres. 12. The subject site is essentially level. 0 May 13, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees_ Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged. 15_ The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade new its northeast comer and two smaller additions near the northwest comer of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls. 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification_ There will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and. trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. 17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient; high volume compactor unit. These units have been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal. 19. The facade tvalment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior treatments. 20_ The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. Tine proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet, 0 May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area where Billy McHale's was Iocated. Code permits a range of parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger complement of parking. 22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes 65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate many of the Iarger, mature trees located in the parking areas. Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership. Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses. 25- Stormwater will be handled by'providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff: The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies. Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use. designations, Commercial Corridor, should be applied. 27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall. Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development While the expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex. 28. The following Table contains staffs analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines: a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines; The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal 0 May 13, 2010 Page S meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to N/A public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City s Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets_ Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ✓ Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard. Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open N/A space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide overthe entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: 10 May 13, 2010 Page 9 Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a J compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 5. Service FJement Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adlacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4,4-090, Refuse and Recycfables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations, Not Compliant Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit elevations for the re se and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure reouirements, garbage, recycling Not Compliant 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. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - V41" oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. 6. Gateways: Not Applicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front Not Compliant property fine or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and O May 13, 20 10 Page 10 RainierAve S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site_ Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SIN /° St would have o landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part .of the application materials, therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent Not Compliant properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Vol Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC4-4-0801+7, Landscape Requirements) 3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable C PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. f Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. V, Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties_ ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. 17 Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. +t Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users_ Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings too or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 9 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street 0 May 13, 2010 Page 11 3. Pedestrian Amenities.- Intent: menities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. +f Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shaft not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aestheticenjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). *01 (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. 1 (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. J Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface { unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3. Pedestrian Amenities.- Intent: menities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. +f Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shaft not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aestheticenjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). ✓ Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the desi=intent and program of the building, the site, and use. { Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface 2arking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets see RMC 4- 4-08OF7 Landscape Re uirements . Such landscaping shall. be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk(see Illustration subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street f frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least .35 fast e . 10 May 13, 2010 Page 12 Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at [east 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. { Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. ✓ Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/pa rki ng space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Staff Comment. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing. .r (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. ,r (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete_ .l (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. .I Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was notsubmitted as part of the application. therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable E BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suft-able for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise 0 May 13, 2010 Page 13_ retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a humanscale;and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40`). Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and westem facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements,• however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement The applicant is proposing two 80 -foot vestibules along the approximate 500 -foot eastern fogade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending poropets,clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large facade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern facade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW /h St facing fagode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest; which break up the wall plane, there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fapade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Z. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual Interest. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment: See comments above. May 13, 2010 Page 14 Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other rComplillt landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment. The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to break up the monotony of the large fapade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagode for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern fogade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale character, additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. ✓ (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. ✓ P (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intens: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 750 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC44-095E. Roof -Top Equipment. Not Compliant Minimum standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 4. Building Materials: May I3, 2010 Page 15 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open N/A space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color N/A scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: it appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the same color scheme and materials. however, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, N/A pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard. Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, ortextural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: intent: To provide a means of Identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the [enter lrrlap¢- anri rrnata minr nnri intnrnct N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building_ N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. N/A Minimum Standard:.Prohibited signs include: i_ Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Sack -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A ordinated with Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signagefincluding the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signe exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finishedluding supportstructure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground/or shrubs) toprovide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. signage mayincorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved ctor. N/A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without costing excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. May 13, 2010 Page 16 Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See comments above Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See comments above CONCLUSIONS: The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g_ Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage streets the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback_ The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined when actual permits for construction are submitted. 4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the May 13, 2010 Page 17 large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting Iight and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. 6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. 7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale. 10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff' has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards. 11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will have to meet the standards for containment and screening. 12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist The additional or better landscaping can help till in the large space between the street and actual store. 13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant paridmg lot is not an adequate tradeoff, The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the neat remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. DECISION: The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subj ect to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site flan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3 _ The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. 0 May 13, 2010 Page 19 6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval_ 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fargade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current PIanning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager_ The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elemenfis in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11_ Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees zmigbt exist. ORDERED THIS 13`s day of May 2010. FRED J. KALTN16JN 1 1 X51 ' TRANSMITTED THIS 13"' day of May 2010 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jack McCullough McCullough & Hill 701 St Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, Ste Bellevue, WA 98004 Kayren Kittrick Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Jeremy Smith, Manager Walmart #2516 509 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajibade, Asst Manager Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart#2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 99057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 May 13, 2010 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr_ Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr- Automotive Walmart 92516 Walmart #2516 Walmart#2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart 92516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld. Francis Canapi Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr_ Walmart #2516 Walmart 92516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743' Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 . Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr. Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. 2' Shift Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart 92516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Jrish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zinnmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27.2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, twice further action as he deems proper. May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter S, Section 1 10, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a ELUng fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hail. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 27, 2010. If the Exnwhaer's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the Iand use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow thew to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Site Area: 594,553 SF (33.6 ac) Total Building Area CSF: ]50,244 SF F3 - YS T23N R5E W V2 is r ►rvr , . I .F < IfCA rrur SlrE I C m CA i4 r 1 F ,,, a Im f ' c4 co� I rrvr I `y rl! - ;` CO I a f H N I �\ C4 w ! C t i f !1 IL 3 . fH A-3 ZDNING M" BOOK H3 - 30 T23N EXHIBIT PW TECHMCAL SEAVIM PRINTED ON 11/13/09 rik.ersLpplr�oY� . I�YSYfw1r.--.Wf.�Mf. fa U 2DO 40D Fl 19 T23N R5E W 112 sis it iu t �- C, Ear 3 i S alp =k ~ `�`_ l tom.., . :� _ • _ _ "' w-tin=� ` ..� �' jfr '.Y _ - !_"•_'- b.>. �s _-.. _ �,i �f. ' # : _�._ as _� =i �:1,� �_• ;�-:= °:' ^ ' �'t_+�-"�• `:' �,. o -+r tom_ '� __ Lv ,_ ,`�; +:.."°' �� .�� iair- -INA wLU 67 { gra - oe R ti rT"r..dq r 29. Y2 04' +}I CD h a ri RR Hi as .i 0 n 0 m x m N m • or Denis Law Cl ty Of, 5 �� f' Mayor �-u r City Clerk -Bonnie I. Walton June 29, 2010 APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010, regarding Site Plan Review & Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart building, known as Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan, 743 Rainier Av S. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Nearing Examiner have expired, the City Clerk shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 9, 2010. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 12, 2010, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057: The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made.that additional'evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6510 / Fax (425) 430-6516 - rentonwa.gov Y OPPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNS OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOAP4ENDATION CITY QF RENTGN i MAY 2 7 2010 !. REC IVED �_�/� 4-[f f},��f-�1� 5 OFFICE APPLICATION NAME /ih .� � Ex � n S f'O r+ 5'r ,(� P/,4 �, �rct ENO. The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Dearing Examiner, dated M A r ! 3 —20/0 L IDEN'T'IFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: IZ.G•e�VA M tfr h6nrs far es Address: C/o e44CI'kh1ee1'2{ 6,0 y1s s1 P/A 444 -IV 11 &V?f- Phone Number: Email: v1 1A 40V ir REPRESENTATTVE (IF ANY): Name: - if_ I A&I e4 et Njevrn t4 � Address: 6rle-�/i'n :i� Aft baa � Yom'' �Y`G . Svr �G 3303 .S�zf7� Phone Num iXy- 81,00 ewf Email: _r164�1mA'4 /Ot"I. 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Findini of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: nom "rent- Ple,,As.e– A., d !� Sty ,rf GCe.R of tof•rn "r.�tn.r, _,/� GoaGG+1r.4� J "AC X IS -;'r Eke' a.Yxfi--te /may Conelusinns: 24•d or// *Sid c,r F.. 1 No. .3 Error: pry✓ c.+d C r. dss r � Sl yjw r v1 'o Other: No. Z-8 eG Correction: 5,02 A (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: Derv/ &,e ✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: g k.'e,tAse, Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows-. r roc Qthe _ G�� � �+Lr a �Gz•�c dt,.� Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name owvq)'�) - �t 7,, c Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. Bicr klin g Newman LLP Reply to: Seattle Office • 0 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: Contact: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Phone: 206-264-8600 Suite 3303 Suite 340 Toll Free: 877-264-72201 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com May 27, 2010 Fred ]_ Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). 1 represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the recent decision_ Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision_ Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. 1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because A fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: T Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (123). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states: The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear_ The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the • Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 3 tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (1 3). As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written_ If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian, pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design_ Id_ Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the . building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations -- approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and tirne again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I I Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion., while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite `Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (� 16). Again, the conclusion being rnade is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. CMN:psc Very truly yours, BPJC IN i , LLP Claudia M. Newman 0, Reply to: Seattle Office Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton- WA 99057 4P 0 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Suite 3303 Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98IS 4 Spokane, WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 7 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE yiQ SBL L r I CDU r/er Rc: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUAl0-009, ECF, SA -H NOTICF OF APPEAL Dear Clerk: Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal- Mart Expansion Site flan Approval. File No. LUA10-009. ECF, SA -H that I am filing on behalf of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is enclosed as is a check in the amount of $250 for the filing lee. I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. Pease direct all communication through me regarding this matter. Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. I believe that the deadline for appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and, therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make this explicit — there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is tollcd if'a party files a reLlttc5t for reconsideration. Therefore. in the interest of'extreme caution, 1 am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature. 1"hank you for your consideration ofthis matter. Very trul_; yours, BR,WjU,rN & . WMAN. LLP Claudia M. Newman 4 CMN:psc ��,.L �..�� s.1 VIA. r ( r,l((,-� t;�5� i C �., rVI VIC e o-1 Enclosure � nv �.� l�tE. ��SL�+� \ �� 1: i )� V \F' ,j t1-Q�1kLc�l�S t�� �LC,(`;,,.ir- 1 ir'v\ry -fin e\ i OPEAL TO RENTON CITY COUN OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION/RECOMMENDATION APPLICATION NAME Mlg llhw `11 EAP-" 51'a,1 SI le P1,1.1 4AOcv,'04 .E NO. EC,—` S 4 - The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated 14 R r 1.4 , 20/0 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: At�-�V,r ff4jhbn,4 Ave •+��ir•,� Address:.Gze, �l4611 'MMee 6,v svv 64� 101,4 ReAfvA I wi Phone Number: lies X77— -115,057 Email: A 1A _ REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: el O 14 dr ot Me t,11" A �+ Address: _ 6✓1 A-11 "ei 1) Alit e44,*,., 1011/ yll� 4V6. 579/f/e 3303 Phone Number:R,g4 -,jGoa Email: !7d Wm A,4 01 -lot -j. 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. ?3 Error: /`PI t, ,. a✓. P/c�t�- / A -4 d R // 54$ {{C�t r7 "raj ek Grt, ".401W J O*t 1 Correction: SCG a.*4k C4— W l dW-r Conclusions• No. Error: _ PiG* s Other: �•d al! Go4GGuA' ivkd a, erm 3. Correction J -0e dL- 4f6 G '. Gc &-A c dl lL t6- 044ia/ 1 PE rj (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: De -".l ✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: vu&-* ASC- Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: Othe aG �i Ha 18 -Pv I a Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. 7J Y _Y "Bricklin& Newman LLP Reply to: Seattle Office Fred J- Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Seattle Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue Suite 3303 Seattle, WA 98154 • Spokane Office: 35 West Main Suite 300 Spokane, WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 246-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. 1 believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. 1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal -Marl expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision. you find as follows: Fred J. Katifmaz) May; 27, 2010 18 Pae 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (¶23). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Martgenerates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The protect _ violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an. illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states: The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, is the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the Pied J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 3 tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (11 3). As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. 'The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id_ The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (�28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance_ The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I Fred ,l, Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. In Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. CMN:psc • Very truly yours, BR1C 1N & MAN, LLP Claudia M. Newman • • • ar • OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, #509 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT/APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Walmart Expansion Site Pian Approval File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H 743 Rainier Ave S May 13, 2010 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the existing W ahnart retail facility, which would include 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 20, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking, the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 27, 2010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. I: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map application, reports, staff comments and other documentation pertinent to this request. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.- LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 2 0 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7`h Street and S Grady Way. 'Be site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. 0 Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures_ No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own buiiding pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fapade to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a ] 0 -foot landscape strip along all street0 Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 8: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7`h Street and S Grady Way. 'Be site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. 0 Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures_ No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own buiiding pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern fapade to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a ] 0 -foot landscape strip along all street0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 3 frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7a' Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements. Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to 30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion_ Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion of the structure to SW 7"' Street. The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code. A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area. The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the facade. A building materials and colors board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided. 0 40 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LU -A-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 4 Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 701 5`b Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site. There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward. In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 76', which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. 0 The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages parking areas around four foot candies and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located. Usunobun Osnig, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation_ The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion. Jack_ McCuliou� stated that they were going to take an existing, facility that is non -conforming in some respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make the project better. Kavren Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short Plat_ All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject to final review and permitting. 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H 40 May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am. FLNDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now mattes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. 3. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959. 10_ The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded. 11. The subject site is approximately 594,5.53 square feet or 13.6 acres. 12. The subject site is essentially level. 0 ft Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 si.gnificant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged. 15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls. 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. I7. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal. 19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior treatments. 20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff s found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is pennitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet. U 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Fie No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area where Billy McHale's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger complement of parking. 22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes 65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas. Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership. Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses. 25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff. The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies. Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial Corridor, should be applied. 27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall. Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex. 28. The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines: a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines, The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal 0 M Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 8 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). Z. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. +� Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing ✓ a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at creast 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: 0 • • • r Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 9 r Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a ✓ compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses; a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and desianed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible toservice _vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-300E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening Not Compliant and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard:_ In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling Not Compliant 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. Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Not Compliant Staff Comment: See comments above_ Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. 6. Gateways: NotAAplicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings, Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front Not Compliant property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Sta{fComment: The bulk of the parking is existing and Located in between the retail store and Drofiak Apartments Site Flan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1 l 2, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 10 • • Rainier Ave 5/5R 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 157 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and Sire 7rh St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials, Not Compliant therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact see RMC 4-4-080F7 Landscape Re uirements . 3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian Connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. ✓ Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shalt be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. ✓ Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties. ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street • • • • 0 0 Drof-iak Apartments Site Flan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page I I trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100,G4d), ✓ (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed_ ✓ (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shak be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. ✓ Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. ✓ Minimum Standard: Alf pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping}. ✓ Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). ✓ Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. ✓ Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate haw the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. ✓ Minimum5tandard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets {see RMC 4-4-OSQ7. Landscape Reguirementsl. Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b1. ✓ Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. 0 4& Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1 May 13, 2010 Pace 12 • • Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. ✓ Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrugs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. ✓ Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for ❑ period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. ✓ Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space ✓ (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Stoff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing o modification is not necessary. Ail new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing. ✓ (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous_ ✓ (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. ✓ (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. +� Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas, Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. n Areas and Common peen Space: Not Applicable rBUILDINGARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: ncourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and riate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise • • • • 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Flan ApproVal File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Paye 13 retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two &0 foot vestibules along the approximate 500 -foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large fu�ode. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7h St facing fo�ode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern facade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane, there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) it is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank wails are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as revea#s, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment: See comments above. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Pale 14 ✓ Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. .I Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern facade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fa�ode for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Stoff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent, (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. +� (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with ars urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. J Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. ./ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend_with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 4. Building Materials: • C • • 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.; LU A-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 15 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time, encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment. It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the same color scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location_ N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include: I. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. N/A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the iarger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public piaces; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior li(ghting_reulations_located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112. SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 16 Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See comments above Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See comments above CONCLUSIONS: The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. 3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements.for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined when actual permits for construction are submitted. 4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the • • Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13-1, 2410 Page 17 large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do Delp to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the existing more utilitarian store_ Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in the northem parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape requirements and over 65,004 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. 7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use. 9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale. 10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards. 11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards_ The enclosure will have to meet the standards for containment and screening. 12. As noted above, the 16,400 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet, Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in the large space between the street and actual store, 11 The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards Drof ak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -1-1 May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. • 16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution_ Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. DECISION: 0 The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 19 6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist. ORDERED THIS l3'� day of May 2010. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 13'x' day of May 2010 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jack McCullough McCullough & Hill 701 Ss' Avenue, Ste. 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, Ste_ 509 Bellevue, WA 98004 Huy Tran, Asst. Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Kayren Kittrick Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Jeremy Smith, Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Sophorn Chan, Assistant Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld. Francis Canapi Walmarc #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, ❑4'A 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr. Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr. Abram Sparrow, Dept_ Mgr Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Svpv, 2"d Shift Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. Walmart 92516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2410 to the following! Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title 1V, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, reuuest for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27, 2010._Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision, This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may. after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. • • 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. • 0 CITY QE REPd7OI4 'PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNC4k MAY 9 7 2010 OF HEARING EXA ' MINER S DECISIONfREC©MMENDATION REC iVED Lt/ACQiCQ�liCs QFHCE APPLICATION NAME 1,,Acr NO.�,4 - The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated Mit r f 3 , 20 /V L IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: )lZ.-1v.4 lid,"n 4�a�s dor �1 Address: C/o �4',Yolv GMc0!0-r- 6ro'..'4r„ Phone Number: 1'rYa0XW — �ysB Email: !il 1A REPRESENTATIVE (1F ANY): Name: Address: ✓7 G l�'rt ?* IElC4✓,s s 1„ topr Y� mac. 5`ur�C 333 5��e_ Phone Num���`�- �GoD W��lSy Email:P.�rr�.er+ d�rtof —fes F.J. �o� 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: n!-s•r�tc �.,r•GW���, fvr' �..�a✓. PrakrG R'1d .411 SGS d Ii Lr G�iu lGX�7�Y {a t�fCrf17 �*_j f,C 6+M in ei b -y, n�car{ evi. 1 ".4oG+Iio-+-1 Correction %t r[d 0.4 14:. r Conclusions: No_ 3 Error: PIG«sC Other - old h1 No. Z-8 aiwd a/f ;art y,o *{I'd dr Far 3 Sty arc.... X levfr C"ll*�W_j Correction: 5'42 A&Ae4-11d1 lely>'' ¢, E 1VV1_. (Attach explanation, if desired) Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DIy, &,e ��oS e ►� Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: �u't-,,CASC_ ,.«Pwc �4-c- Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: 2e,�,VZ4 H40 Othe d! Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name 7r Date NOTE: Please refer to Title N, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. wta Brick1ju Newman LLP :ter. Reply to: Seattle Office Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: 1401 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Suite 3303 Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.hnd-law.com Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title JV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Relator) Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal ran only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider ,the Known Trig Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site PIan Approval Decision at 7 (T23). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states; The existing use, a large "big box" establisluuent does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 3 tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3). .As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100, See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated_ Id_ Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the building and the front property line_ The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (fi28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and tune again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. Very truly yours, BRIC IN & N, LLP 7? Claudia M_ Newman CMN:psc Th2l3A11-09-008 4 f widn-dad pjogaj al ia�paa 4uaws�aey� T O%S �.83Av il�ege6 ai zesion I WO71Gane nnnnnn i a uldln4{7eW e{ zdijdav i ja}ad a solpek sa�lan#1 3 Jack McCullough Jeff Chambers Usunobun Osagie McCullough & Hill PACLAND Larry D. Craighead Architects 701 5th Avenue, Ste. 7220 1505 Westland Ave N., Ste. 305 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Seattle, WA 98104 Seattle, WA 98109 Dallas, TX 75202 Peter Bonnell Jeremy Smith, Manager Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Mgr. Bonnell Family LLC Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 10047 Main Street, Ste. 509 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Bellevue, WA 98004 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst. Mgr Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr. Automotive Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Associate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept. Manager William Carey, Jr., Safety Team Francis Canapi Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Levan Dept. Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 7Rainier Ave S ton, WA 98057 Renton, Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead 5upv. Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr. Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr. 2nd Shift Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. Claudia M. Newman Walmart #2516 Bricklin & Newman, LLP 743 Rainier Ave S 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3303 Renton, WA 98057 Seattle, WA 98154 T e096S Ob ; 009kS a�ejdwalAaanV ash am ' slage� �f�a�se3 • June 29, 2010 STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING CERTIFICATE OF MAILI L BONNIE I. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 29th day of June, 2010, at the hour of 5:00 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP, of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation regarding the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan. (File No. LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF) 1 • �-d-� Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 29th day of June, 2010. CynthiaR. Moya Notary ublic in and for the State of Washington, residing in Renton My commission expires: 8/27/2010 �rrrr•rrf� r ' ARY Z i E OF • June 29, 2010 • APPEAL FILED BY: Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth by their attorney Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP. RE: Appeal of Hearing Examiner's decision dated May 13, 2010, regarding Site Plan Review & Environmental (SEPA) Review for the expansion of the existing Wal-Mart building, known as Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan, 743 Rainier Av S. (File No. LUA-10-009 SA, ECF) To Parties of Record: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Renton City Code of Ordinances, written appeal of the hearing examiner's decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Approval has been filed with the City Clerk. In accordance with Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110F, within five days of receipt of the notice of appeal, or after all appeal periods with the Hearing Examiner have expired, the City Cleric shall notify all parties of record of the receipt of the appeal. Other parties of record may submit letters limited to support of their positions regarding the appeal within ten (10) days of the date of mailing of this notification. The deadline for submission of additional letters is by 5:00 p.m., Monday, July 9, 2010. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the written appeal and other pertinent documents will be reviewed by the Council's Planning and Development Committee at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 12, 2010, in the Council Chambers, 7th Floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The recommendation of the Committee will be presented for consideration by the full Council at a subsequent Council meeting. Copy of the appeal and the Renton Municipal Code regarding appeal of Hearing Examiner decisions or recommendations is attached. Please note that the City Council will be considering the merits of the appeal based upon the written record previously established. Unless a showing can be made that additional evidence could not reasonably have been available at the prior hearing held by the Hearing Examiner, no further evidence or testimony on this matter will be accepted by the City Council. For additional information or assistance, please call me at 425-430-5510. Sincerely, luPl •U a ldage � Bonnie I. Walton City Clerk Attachments Reply to: Seattle Office 0 0 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Suite 3303 Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 48457 Contact: Phone: 206-264-6600 Toll Free: 877-254-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 7 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERKS OFFICE May 27, 2010 tlt'Q,6e p/ %duYief' Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-409, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact. and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. 1, The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Tri Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (�23). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store_ When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion_ But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site_ At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states: The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the Fred 7, Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 3 tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site flan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3). As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I Fred T. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect_ For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 (¶ 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. Very truly yours, BRI IN & MAN, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN.pse 0 1,Y o CITY OF REN'1 ON Receipt 1592 G City Clerk Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 ;f y �' NV 0/ 425-430-6510 Date ❑ Cash ❑ Copy Fee ❑ Notary Service Check No. f -� ❑ Appeal Fee ❑ Description:, Funds Received From: Name Address City/Zip Amount $ City Staff Signature Clerk's Office Distribution List + ; Appeal, Walmart Expansion Located at: 743 Rainier Av S File No. LUA-10-009, ECF, SA -H 1 Renton Reporter ✓r 1 City Attorney Larry Warren 1 City Council * '� Julia Medzegian 1 CED Alex Pietsch 1 Assistant Fire Marshal David Pargas 7 Planning Commission V Judith Subia 2 1 Parties of Record** (see attached list) 1 PW/Administration Gregg Zimmerman 7 PW/Development Services Neil Watts Jennifer Henning-," Stacy Tucker ✓ k v/ Janet Conklin✓ Larry Meckling,/ 1 PW/Transportation Services Connie Brundage 1 PW/Utilities & Tech Services Lys Hornsby 1 LUA-10-009 *City Clerk's Letter & POR List only Y CITY cor RENTO►N ♦ Hearing Examiner. .Danis Law, Mayor, Fred J.. Kaufman , June 10, 2010' Claudia A Newman Bricklin & Newman; `LLP 1001 Fourth Ave.,` Ste. 3303 Seattle, WA 98154 Re: Walmart.Expansion, LUA-10-009, SA -H, ECF Request for Reconsideration Dear 1V1s.. Newman:. This Office received:a request for reconsideration in this matter. As the request notes,_the parties seeking reconsideration did .not attend the hearing. Since na. members -of the group represented by the request are idlentified individually, it is hard to determine if any of them submitted individual comments that are contained in the file but Since these parties claim "they were not aware of the proposal at that time" (First full paragraph) it seems that they were not involved in the comment or public hearing. At the public hearing there was no testimony in opposition to the request and no one asked any neutral questions. It would appear that:oppos tion to the application is newly minted in this request. The public hearing was legally convened. There is no allegation that the legal notice was deficient: The request raised two main issues regarding the approval The first issue' was that traffic counts underestimated the _amount of traffic the`proposai would generate: This challenge or request for. additional information, is untimely. The issues should have been raised during th.e course of the public. hearing or in comments submitted in advance of the hearing.. Subsequent to the close..of the public hearing, the only new. information., that may be subirbitted is information-that[was not reasonably available at: the public hearing. 'If the traffic counts were indeed wrong, that was information that. would have, been realsoiiably available at the time of the public hearing and should have been introduced in`a timely fashion. In any event their ;request does, not show that. the projections were erroneous, The only thing. submitted was conjecture about the projections. These parties seeking reconsideration appeared after the public hearing with no showing that they were deprived of an opportunity to timely comment or question the facts surrounding the proposal. The second issue raised in the.request for.reconsideration was whether the proposal meets the criteria of Renton's Code. This portion of the request 'can be divided into two subcategories. One: Whether the proposal meets the Design District D guidelines? Two: Whether the proposal was an. im r0 er.ex expansion of a le. al non -conforming use. The answers to both questions are. _ ...._. p.. p. P 9 9 � - . . governed by the language. of the Design District Overlay provisions: The Design District Guidelines are "overlay" provisions and govern properties within their boundaries regardless of -the underlying zoning and other zoning provisions: The overlay guidelines.provide that projects. be reviewed with,an eye toward flexibility to forward the main . 'thrust of the, guldeline5 ; to.create better:designed and integrated projects. The guidelines allow different or creative ways to achieve those principles. Section.4-37100(A)(2) states: 2. This Section lists elements that are required to be induded in all development in the zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each y R E .N T O N>osssown Grady w$s _ AHEAD OP THE, CURVE. - -� Thf�nanPr rnniainc 5fl°iF rar:vrtarimMwrial 3f79�rnaf rrn,cimPr - element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability; standards are provided, These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be, met. In order to brovide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards. . a. ` The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made. by the Administrator of the Department of. Community and, Economic Development or designee. b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee has determined that the proposed manner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient,the applicant shall no.t.be.required. to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. . Section 4-3-100(D) states: D. ADMINISTRATION: 1. Review Process:. Applications sgbject to design regulations shall be processed as a component of the "governing land use process_" 2. Authority: The.Re�iewing Official.shall have the -authority to approve, approye.with conditions, or deny, proposals based upon the provisions of . the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official.wili consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider:the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and enco"urade creative design alternatives in order to achieve the Durposes of the desion regulations. (emphasis supplied) The provisions cited above allow sufficient latitude to permit:the proposed expansion as conditioned in the decision: Those guidelines also govern properties that might be considered legal non -conforming uses or "big box retail."' Code permits them to be developed iri. accordance with the guidelines rather than the more general regulations governing properties outside of a District governed by overlay regulations: Sections 4-3-100(13)(1)(a)(v) and (b) contain the following language: B APPLICABILITY AND CONFLICTS: 1... Applicability: a.. The following development activities shall be required to comply with, = theprovisions of this Section: is All subdivisions including short plats; _ ii. All new. structures; iii. Conversion of vacant land (e.g•, to parking or storage lots); iv. Conversion of a residential use to a" nonresidential use; v. Alterations enlargements: and/or restorations of nonconforming structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050. b. . Any of the activities listed in subsection B1 a of this Section and occurring in the following oveday'areas or zone shall_ be "required to comply with the provisions of this section. Big box retail as outlined below shall also be required to comply with the provisions of this section. So, not only is the redevelopment of non -conforming uses permitted under these regulations but Brickift Newman LLP Reply to: Seattle Office Fred J. Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: Contact: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Phone: 206-264-8600 Suite 3303 Suite 300 Tod Free: 877-264-7220 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 l=ax, 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 7 2010 RECEIVED CITY OLE RK'S OFFICE May 27, 2010 VJd 4,66 4 pl barter' I.40 pm . Re: Wal -,Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval-, File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Rcnton 'Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. 1X'e have only eery recently learned of the proposal and, therefore, we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far. it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Cade does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. 1. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Trip Generation Characteristics of the Site We helieve that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: Trcd J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Paoc 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (¶23). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this 1k al -Mart Ljcnerates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal Mansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval. l" first. the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states: The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (¶ 3). As it is. this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City- is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk. Id, The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments n7aintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The. Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District 'D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (¶28). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual nicrit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. 1 Fred J. Kaufman May 27. 2010 Pale 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Fxpansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 18 ('- 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building_ That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. Very truly yours, BRIC IN & MAN, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc Rocale Timmons irfa i r,l=., From: Jessica M. Clawson [Jessica@mhseattle.com] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 2;08 PM To: Rocale Timmonsjlr' Cc: Jack McCullough Subject: Response to Hearing Examiner RLCEIVEO Attachments: Response to reconsideration 6-4-10.pdf :;r' UL.FRIC' OFFICE Hi Rocale, Can you please forward this to the Hearing Examiner's office? Thanks. Jessie Clawson Attorney at Law McCULLOUGH HILL, P.S. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7220 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 812-3388 (206) 812-3389 (fax) Jessica&rnhseattle.com CONFJDPN'1'I,1I.I"I'Y NOTICE: This email message maybe protected by the attorney/client privilege, work product doctrine or other confidentiality protection. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 0 MCCULLOUGH HILL, PS ';R`;K��`" June 4, 2010 Fred J. Kaufman City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Response to Request for Reconsideration File NO. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Dear Mr. Examiner. We write on behalf of the applicant Jeff Chambers/PACLAND to respond to the Request for Reconsideration (the "Request") of your decision approving the above -referenced project (the "Project"), which was filed by "Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth," ("RNHG" on May 27, 2010. The request is without merit and should be denied. We mote at the outset that RNHG failed to appear at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner in this case. As such, there is no evidence in this closed record supporting any standing on the part of RNHG, and the Request fails to set forth any grounds under which RNHG is an "interested person" in this case, as required under RMC 4-8-100. RNHG's absence in the administrative review process for the Project constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies in this case. The Applicant reserves all rights and defenses in this proceeding relating to RNHG's lack of participation in this case, failure to make a record, failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of standing. RMC 4-8-100(G)(4) outlines the criteria for the reconsideration of the Examiner's decision. Reconsideration may be granted when the Examiner's decision is based on an erroneous procedure, errors of lav or fact, an error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing. The request for reconsideration shall set forth the specific errors relied upon by the appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as the Examiner deems proper. Here, RNHG has failed to shote that the Examiner's decision meets any of the reconsideration criteria. Its request must be rejected. Issue One RNHG states that the Hearing Examiner should reconsider the site plan review decision because the Traffic Impact Analysis ("TlA") studying traffic impacts of the project allegedly underestimated trip generation counts. This allegation is untimely, without support in the record, and should be rejected. 701 Fifth Avenue • Suite 7220 • Seattle, Washington 98104 • 206.812.3388 • Fax 206.812.3389 • www.mhscatdc.com C. City of Renton l leating Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 2 of G First, the traffic mitigation fee referenced by RNHG was imposed by the SEPA Mitigated Deterimna6on of Nonsignificance ("MDNS") that was issued in connection with dus Project. See Attachment 1. The MDNS was issued on March 25, 2010. The TLA submitted by the applicant identified that the project would generate 608 additional daily trips. To mitigate for these additional trips, the MDNS imposed a SEPA condition requiring the payment of $45,600 in traffic unpact fees (608 trips x $75.00). See Attachment 1, Condition 5. The deadline for MDNS appeals expired on April 16, 2010. RNHG did not submit comments into the record regarding the MDNS, and failed to appeal the MDNS. RNHG cannot now attempt to appeal the imposition of the traffic mitigation condition, as the appeal is untimely. The request for reconsideration should be rejected for this reason alone. Second, RNHG's allegations ate without support in the record. RNHG did not appear at the site plan hearing before the Hearing Examiner and has not submitted into the record any evidence supporting its allWdons of a discrepancy regarding trip generation. It is barred from -Aft. submitting any evidence now because the record has been closed. In the absence of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, RNHG's request for reconsideration must be rejected. RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). Issue Two RNHG has alleged that the project does not comply with the City of Renton's Design District `D' regulations. RNHG has mi'stepresented the Renton Municipal Code with regards to the design guidelines, and this allegation is therefore without factual or legal support. It should be rejected. First, as with all of RNHG's allegations, RNHG failed to submit evidence showing that the Project does not comply with the staffs interpretation of the design guidelines. In the absence of any evidence in the record to support its allegations, the Examiner's initial decision, and the staff's recorrunendation, are entitled to deference. See RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). RNHG's request for teconsideration must be rejected. In addition, RNHG's allegation regarding the City's design guidelines misses the point. The guidelines specifically state that they are intended to allow flexibility in project design. RMC 4-3-100(A)(2). ("These standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element.") The guidelines .also grant the decisionmaker wide discretion in determining compliance with the guidelines, and do not require strict compliance with the guidelines: When the Adrninistrator... or designee has determined that the proposed manner o fneeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. • City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 3of6 • RMC 4-8-100(G)(2)(b). The guidelines grant further flexibility, to be exercised by the reviewing official: The Reviewing Official shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations. In rendering a decision, the Official will consider proposals on the basis of individual merit, will consider the overall intent of the minimum standards and guidelines, and encourage creative design alternatives in order to achieve the purposes of the design regulations. RMC 4-3-100(D)(2). The Examiner correctly applied R1VIC 4-3-100(D)(2) by allowing some flexibility, and by requiring the imposition of several design review conditions, in order to create a better -designed project. See Conclusions 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12; Conditions 8, 9, 10, 11_ For example, rather than requiring a corr=ercial store to provide windows along the ground floor, the -4W Examiner imposed a condition maintaining the intent of the design guideline (to provide human interest at ground level). See Condition 8. RNHG's allegations axe without merit and must be rejected. Issue Three RNHG has alleged that the project is an illegal expansion of a nonconforming use_ This allegation is without legal support. It must be rejected. In addition to its traditional development regulations, the RMC includes, at Chapter 4-3, a set of Urban Design Overlay regulations. They are designed to implement the Land Use and Community Design Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. As true overlay regulations, they are applied independent of the other development regulations of the Code, which they supersede. These overlay regulations govern: a_ Site design and building location; b. Parking and vehicular access; c. Pedestrian environment; d. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space; e. Building Architectural Design; f_ Signage; g. Lighting. The application of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations is not intended under the Code to be prescriptive, but rather to foster flexible solutions that lead to improved design. Specifically: 2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all development in the zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each element includes an intent statement, standards, and guidelines. In order to provide predictability, standards are provided. These • City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 4 of G • standards specify a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. These guidelines and the :intent statement provide direction for those who seek to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards. a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made by the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee. b. When the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or designee has determined that the. proposed 'runner of meeting the design requirement through the guidelines and intent is sufficient, the applicant shall not be `required to demonstrate sufficiency to the standard associated with the guideline that has been approved. Thus, the Administrator (and the Heating Examiner in review) must review the proposed project design against the standardstguidelines and intent statement of each design element, in order to determine compliance with the Urban Design Overlay Regulations. Under RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii), the Urban Design Overlay Regulations apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses. `Big Box Retail" uses are defined in the Code as follows: An 'indoor retail or wholesale use in a building no less than seventy five thousand (75,000) square feet of gross floor area and typically requires a high parking -to -building area ration. Big -box retail buildings are typically single - story structures, with a mass that stands more than thirty feet (30;) tall. Big - box retail/wholesale sales can include, but are not limited to, membership warehouse clubs that emphasize bulk sales, discount stores, and outlet stores. This definition excludes vehicle sales, outdoor retail sales, and adult retail uses. RMC 4-11-180. The Project is a Big Box Retail use. As such, under the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, the Project is subject to compliance with the design regulations applicable to District `D'. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(b)(ii). As noted above, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations govern, among other things, site design and building location. That is to say, the required site design and building location for the Project is determined by the Urban Design Overlay Regulations. Pursuant to the Hearing Examiner Decision, the Project has been determined to comply with these regulations, including with respect to the location of the building in the Project. Under the Site Plan Approval pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, the approved location of the building in the Project is not consistent with the setback requirements of the CA zone (see RMC 4-2-100), as noted in the Request. However, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations are clear that "where there are conflicts between the design regulations of this Section and other sections of the Renton Municipal Code, the regulations of this Section shall prevail." RMC 4-3-100(B)(2). Thus, the approval of the location of the building in the Project, as :7 City of Renton Hearing Examiner June 4, 2010 Page 5 of G determined pursuant to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, controls over the inconsistent provisions of the CA zone relating to setbacks. Conclusion No. 3 of the Hearing Examiner decision acknowledges that the Project cannot be expected (given the small size of the expansion) to bring the Project building to within 15 feet of Rainier Avenue, Under Conclusion No. 4, the Hearing Examiner notes (in his discussion relating to Urban Design compliance) that the significant building setback works to ease the transition to neighboring uses. This Conclusion is consistent with the intent of the Building Location and Orientation provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which suggest that buildings should "ensure an appropriate transition between building, parking areas, and other land uses" and that "careful siting and design treatment should be used to achieve a compatible transition where buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale." RMC 4-3-100(E)(1). With respect to the applicable standards of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations regarding building siting, both the Administrator and the Hearing Examiner properly concluded that thr Project will meet those standards. Hence, while the Project is "nonconforming" as to the front yard setback requirements of rhe CA zone, it is fully conforming to the Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which control in this case. This conclusion is reinforced by the provisions of the Urban Design Overlay Regulations which delegate to the Administrator (and the Examiner) the authority to approve expansions of nonconforming structures through the design review process. RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v) provides that the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically apply to "alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of nonconforming structures, pursuant to RMC 4-10-050." Thus, even iE the Project were viewed as "nonconforming" under RMC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations specifically authorize the Administrator (and Hearing Examiner) to use the design review process to supersede the other provisions of the Code. The Examiner's application of the design guidelines to the Project was proper. RNHG's allegation must be rejected. In summary, RNHG's allegations are untimely and without legal or factrial merit in the following manner: • RNHG's claim regarding the traffic mitigation condition is untimely as the traffic mitigation fees were imposed as SEPA conditions in the MDNS. The appeal period has long since passed for the MDNS. • RNHG's claim regarding design guidelines is without legal or factual merit. First, RNHG failed to submit any evidence in support of its claim. Second, the design guidelines gives the Examiner the authority to encourage creative design alternatives to meet the intent of the guidelines. RMC 4-3- 100(D) (2). L� City of Renton Hearing Exazxainer June 4, 2010 Page 6 of 6 • RNHG's claian regarding nonconforming structures is without legal merit. The Urban Design Overlay Regulations, which prevail over other design regulations of the Code, apply specifically to Big Box Retail uses like the Project RMC 4-3-100(B)(1)(a)(v). The Examiner properly applied the design guidelines to this Big Box Retail use to create a project of better design. Even if the Project were deemed a "nonconforming structure" under RMC 4-10-050, the Urban Design Overlay Regulations would still apply to the Project, and would control over inconsistent development regulations of the Code_ For these .reasons, we respectfully ask that the Hearing Examiner reject the Request for Reconsideration. Sincerely, qJoC. McCullough cc: Rocale Timmons, City of Renton Claudia Newman, Bricklin & Newman, LLP ,-ift . Denis Law —City 0 Mayor Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Jeff Chambers, P.E. Pacland 1505 Westlake Avenue N #305 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD (SEPA) DETERMINATION Walmart Expansion, LUA10-409, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Chambers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part 2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p -m. on April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, C€ty of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may he obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510, A Public Hearing will be held by the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall,1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be heard as part of this public hearing. Renton City Hall 0 1055 South Grady Way 0 Renton,Washington 9$057 0 rentonwa.gov 4� • Jeff chambers March 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Ll The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219, For the Environmental Itgview Committee, Roca[ Timmo Ass ciate Planner Enclosure CC., Peter BDnnelI - Bomell-Family LLC / owner(s) -4ft a Bricklin Newman LLP Reply- to: Seattle Office Renton City Clerk Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton- WA 98057 0 Seattle Office: Spokane Office: 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Maln Suite 3303 Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact: Phone: 206-264-8690 Toll Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com CITY OF RENTON MAY 2 7 2010 RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Via '4& Ler I Coufl°." Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H NOTICE OF APPEAL Dear Clerk: Please find enclosed an appeal of the City of Renton Hearing Examiner's decision on the Wal- Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval, File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H that T am filing on behalf of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision is enclosed as is a check in the amount of 5250 for the filing fee. I am the representative for Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth. Pease direct all communication through me regarding this matter. Please note that I have also separately filed a request for reconsideration directly to the Hearing Examiner today, a copy of which is also enclosed herein. 1 believe that the deadline for appealing the Hearing Examiner's decision is tolled by my request for reconsideration and, therefore, this appeal is technically premature. However, the Renton City Code does not make this explicit - there is no provision stating that the deadline for an appeal to the City Council is tolled if a party files a request for reconsideration. Therefore. in the interest of extreme caution, I am filing this appeal today. I will withdraw the appeal if the City indicates that it is premature. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very truly yours, B LIN & :N, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN:psct L=f f -i .r 9' Enclosure if1 fL 0 PEAL TO RENTON CITY COUNCIL OF HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISIONIRECOMMENDATION APPLICATIONNAME NO, _Z`. 5,4 The undersigned interested party hereby files its Notice of Appeal from the decision or recommendation of the Land Use Hearing Examiner, dated MAV 13 , 20/0 1. IDENTIFICATION OF PARTY APPELLANT: Name: f -t•; 11v.4 lie," hka,,. Avf Mt, -I& Address. C/o �1,101,/ 6vheel�r G'�.17,1+ Phone Number: f'/90 X77-'�° Email: A 1A REPRESENTATIVE (IF ANY): Name: z',/ A t4 d r a Address://'✓t t Al" A, /oa / Yom' . 5'11fle 3 5�j�e- Phone Num 1 Email:. n M A,4 6.1d - of k1, 10/3-,f 2. SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS {Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Set forth below are the specific errors or law or fact upon which this appeal is based: Finding of Fact: (Please designate number as denoted in the Examiner's Report) No. Error: q,F d q & 5Z -a •r f¢ �a c to r ( lc ffr :rf e.rn :tib r ,k : n v Sy- n,cv�c rfl.�rx�i le -040&t.&'1-11 Correction: &trcd o Conclusions: No..3 Error: A7 Other: ;" d,':41 sk-d w!! Eaas,tld a� 3. Correction: SLG OL -da e4v-- Gc� dsspr�i 51�7��c� y0��1�- Gc o'ke w 4Polo ar *--Q 1 Fr] (Attach explanation, if desired) Y"" Reverse the decision or recommendation and grant the following relief: DGny 6;4 ✓ Modify the decision or recommendation as follows: ",r.,,tASe- 1,,,,j4^a Remand to the Examiner for further consideration as follows: acLark ,�r� na Othe C��� u �.r "o• Ii%Gr,.t7s�c Gt�1 � S %r �D! t7 Appellant/Representative Signature Type/Printed Name Date NOTE: Please refer to Title IV, Chapter 8, of the Renton Municipal Code, and Section 4-8-110F, for specific appeal procedures. Bricklin k.. Newman LLP Reply to: Seattle Office Fred J_ Kaufman Office of the Hearing Examiner Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Seattle Office: Spokane Office; 1001 Fourth Avenue 35 West Main Suite 3303 Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98154 Spokane, WA 99201 May 27, 2010 Contact; Phone: 206-264-8600 Toll Free: 877-264-7220 Fax: 206-264-9300 www.bnd-law.com Re: Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval; File No. LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Examiner: Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100(G) of the City of Renton Code, I am filing this request for reconsideration of your decision approving the Wal -Mast Expansion Site Plan issued on May 13, 2010 (referred to herein as the "Decision"). I represent Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth, which is comprised of members who are concerned about the impact of this proposal. Members of Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth did not attend the hearing on this matter in April simply because they were not aware of the proposal at that time. We have only very recently learned of the proposal and, therefore; we have had little time and opportunity to review the file prior to the appeal and reconsideration deadline. However, from what I have reviewed so far, it is evident to me that there are errors based in fact and law in the recent decision. Therefore, pursuant to RMC 4-8-100(G)(4), I write to request that you reconsider the decision. Because the Renton Code does not explicitly state that the filing of a request for reconsideration tolls the deadline for an appeal to the Renton City Council, I have also filed an appeal of the decision to the City Council today. I did this only out of caution and will withdraw that appeal if the City makes it clear that the appeal can only be filed after your decision on reconsideration. I believe it makes most sense to present these issues to you prior to proceeding with an appeal to the City Council considering that you have not yet had an opportunity to consider the issues presented. The Trip Generation Estimate is Incorrect Because it Fails to Consider the Known Trip Generation Characteristics of the Site We believe that the estimate for future trip generation of the Wal-Mart expansion is incorrect because it fails to take existing trip characteristics of the site into consideration. In your Decision, you find as follows: Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 2 The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7 (x(23). The traffic report reveals that this particular Wal-Mart produces far more than average traffic. That is not surprising considering that we have heard that this Wal-Mart is the highest grossing Wal-Mart in Washington State. It should go without saying that when a proposal involves an existing store, the traffic impact analysis should utilize the existing store's numbers to predict trip generation for expansion of that store. When the existing store's numbers are compared with ITE predictions, it becomes evident that this Wal-Mart generates traffic at a higher level (about 40% higher) than the average discount store of that size. The store would no doubt continue to generate higher than average counts after the expansion. But Wal -Mart's traffic consultant, Transpo, does not take this into consideration. Transpo counted traffic for the existing store, but didn't analyze the counts using existing trip generation characteristics. Transpo simply utilized the ITE numbers, which are simply average numbers. As a result, the trip generation conclusions are too low for this higher than average traffic producing site. At the very least, a new analysis should be performed with this in mind. With the end result being far higher traffic generation numbers, the impact fees for the proposal would increase accordingly. 2. The project violates several requirements of the Renton Code and it is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use With what feels like a wink and a nod by the City, the Wal-Mart proposal was approved despite that it obviously violates a number of legal requirements in the Code and is an illegal expansion of a non -conforming use. We ask that you reconsider that approval, First, the Wal-Mart proposal does not comply with the setback requirements for the site. The Decision states; The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter, the L J Fred J_ Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page a tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 16 (� 3). As it is, this is a non -conforming use that cannot legally be expanded. The Decision concludes that the regulations need not be met by Wal-Mart because the expansion is reasonably well- designed and will revitalize the existing store. That is not an adequate justification for granting a developer an exception from the City Code requirements. Even if it were, that is a policy call that must be made by the legislative body - it is not a decision to be made by the quasi-judicial body. The Hearing Examiner must apply the code as it is written. If there is no exception in the code for existing buildings, then the expansion must be denied. The Wal-Mart expansion is also subject to compliance with design regulations applicable to District "D" as detailed in RMC 4-3-100. See RMC 4-2-060; RMC 4-2-080(A)(72). In those regulations, the City of Renton has set forth a specific regulatory vision for what development should look like. Clearly, the City is trying to change the current look of its Commercial areas and replace it with more vibrant, walkable retail areas. The City's goal is to establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. RMC 4-3-100(E). Businesses are meant to enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way and pedestrian activity is to be encouraged through design. Id. Buildings are to be oriented in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated. Id. Buildings entries should be designed to further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk_ Id. The visual impact of parking lots should be minimized and active pedestrian environments maintained by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Id. The Wal-Mart expansion does not meet this vision nor does it meet the specific regulatory requirements tied to this vision. What we have is a typical Wal-Mart Discount Store expanding into a typical Wal-Mart Discount Superstore with an enormous parking lot located between the building and the front property line. The proposal is for exactly the opposite of what the City describes in its regulations — approval of the proposal undermines the City's attempt to change the area. The Decision incorporates the table that sets forth the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with Design District `D' guidelines. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 7-16 (128). The table is introduced with the statement "[a]s demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met." Id. at 7. That is simply not the case. The project, time and time again, is out of compliance with several of the minimum design standards and the conditions of approval in no way pull it into compliance. The table itself shows that this proposal is not compliant with twenty (20) minimum standards in the Design Regulations. I Fred J. Kaufman May 27, 2010 Page 4 believe that the proposal is out of compliance with even more minimum standards than that. The many conclusions that it is compliant with other minimum standards in that table are simply incorrect. For example, it is not compliant with the minimum standards concerning Site Design and Building Location or Pedestrian Environment. Overall, the proposal should be denied because of these numerous inconsistencies with the code. The Decision states: In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance.... "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan Approval Decision at 1$ (� 16). Again, the conclusion being made is that Wal-Mart need not comply with the code because this is a modest expansion that enhances the existing building. That is simply not a legal or justifiable decision to make in the quasi-judicial setting. Any hope that Wal-Mart would do anything better in "the next remodel" to further the vision of the City code is lost considering that Wal -Mart's only experience so far has been an approval despite disregarding the regulations as they exist today. Thank you for your consideration of our request to reconsider the decision on the Wal-Mart Expansion Site Plan approval. Very truly yours, BRIO IN & N, LLP Claudia M. Newman CMN:psc OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, #509 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT/APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste, 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Wahnart Expansion Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H 743 Rainier Ave S May 13, 2410 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 15,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,004 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 20, 2010. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 17, 1010 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. I: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map application, reports, staff comments and other documentation pertinent to this re uest. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7�' Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3°/x, CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done_ Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32'4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern facade to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 44: Landsca e Plan Exhibit No. 5: `free Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. S: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7�' Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3°/x, CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done_ Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32'4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern facade to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No., LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 3 frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7a' Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements. Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERC. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to 30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support forthis expansion. Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion of the structure to SW 7a` Street. The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting pian needs to be provided showing both existing and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code. A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area. The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations_ Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of landscaping_ The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the fayade. A building materials and colors board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LU -A-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 4 Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 7015"' Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site. There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward. In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7"', which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles_ The current parking lot meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located_ Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation,, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy_ They want the City to be happy with this expansion. Jack McCullough stated that they were going to take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance- They are consistently working with staff to make the project better. Kayren Kittrick'Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short Plat. All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. Itis still subject to final review and permitting. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were subject to the foot candles being at a level that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10.56 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following; FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Medium Industrial). The vast majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. 9_ The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959. 10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded. 11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres. 12. The subject site is essentially level. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval Pile No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subject site mill be unchanged. 15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade_ The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls_ 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification_ There will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the M eneral merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooflines that curve in wing like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. 17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal. 19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades_ Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior treatments. 20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards_ The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area where Billy McHale's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger complement of parking. 22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes 65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas. Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERC imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership_ Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses. 25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff. The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies. Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial Corridor, should be applied. 27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall. Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex. 28. The following Table contains staff s analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines: a) Review of Compliance to District V Design Guidelines; The site is located within Design'District 'D'. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations. where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table beiow the proposal • Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 8 • meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high Urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to N/A public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shO consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Su& streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, an -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent; To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near.the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ✓ Minimum Standard. The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: Intent; To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that buiiding entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing ✓ a street, shall be prominent, visibie from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open N/A space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: • DrOfiak Aparnnents Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 9 • Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-estabiished, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard, Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition: where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard:. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adiacent„ uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located_where_they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC4-3-100E7e1. Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening Not Compliant and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides,,_ including the roof and screened Not Compliant around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have seif-closing doors. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian -oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. 6. Gateways: Not Applicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front Not Compliant property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Paae 10 Rainier Ave 5/5R 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicont is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave SJSR 167 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SW f° St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the buiiding and the street. 2, Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possibie, Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties_ Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials, therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent Not Compliant properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Minimum Standard: All surface parkinp, lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact see RMC 4-4-080F7 Landscape Re uirements . 3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT, Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots, Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. f Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. ✓ Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties. J Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. ., Minimum Standard. Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials_ ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail bui}dings 100 or more feet in width (measured aiong the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street r� Drofiak Apartrnents Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 11 • trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-11DO.G4d). ✓ (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. ✓ (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. ✓ Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an ail -weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent.of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LAN DSCAPING/RECREAT1DN AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. ✓ Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). +� Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shal I be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). *� Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. ✓ Minimum Standard: The landscape pian shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. +� Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shalt be screened by .landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-0801=7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). ✓ Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. • Drof ak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -14 May 13, 2010 Page 12 • Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. J Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. +� Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as foliows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space ✓ (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover_ As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, wvhich does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing ❑ modification is not necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard far tree spacing. (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. ,l (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. ✓ (5) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. .l Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or d in plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation pian was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of aoproval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to ,construction or building permit approval. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable E. BUILDiNG ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materiais that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 13 retail architecture_ 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All buiiding facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the approximate 500 -foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large fapade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the easternfapode thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St facing fapade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fapode includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest which break up the wall plane, there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fapade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 2. Ground -Levet Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment: See comments above. C Droiiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 14 • ✓ Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall, ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern facade. However, the applicant has pravided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitertions of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade_ Minimum Standard; Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the bu[lding. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. ✓ (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. ✓ (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. ✓ {d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 4, Building Materials: Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No_: LUA-09-1 12, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 15 Intent: To ensure high standards of quaPty and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit opprovol. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sired appropriately for their location. N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include: L Pole signs; fl. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. N/A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum_ Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting located in „regulations RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in oil cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, uniess ofternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. • Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 16 • Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shalt be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project Off-site. Staff Comment: See comments above Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. 5toff Comment: See comments above CONCLUSIONS: The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; C. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; Conservation of property values; Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block_ The new design features will also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. 3. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements -for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined when actual permits for construction are submitted. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 17 large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot_ The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. 6. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. 7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of ears circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale. 10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site_ The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards_ 11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will have to meet the standards for containment and screening. 12. As noted above, the 16.000 square feet of rernodeied area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet_ Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in the large space between the street and actual store. 13_ The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -11 May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is an overriding reason not to be conforming_ The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot landscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited. perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. 'Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. DECISION: The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions: 1, The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval_ As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alterr►ative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount. as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy Permit. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 19 6. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. & The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern fagade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist. ORDERED THIS 13a' day of May 2010. FRED J. KAUFMAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 13a` day of May 2010 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Kayren Kittrick Community & Economic Dev Community & Economic Dev City of Renton City of Renton Jack McCullough McCullough & Hill 701 5h Avenue, Ste. Seattle, WA 98104 Jeff Chambers PACLAND 7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, Ste_ 509 Bellevue, WA 98004 Jeremy Smith, Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst, Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Wairnart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 0 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Brandi Hansen, Mgr Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, ICS Asssociate Mark Goodman Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Waimart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld_ Francis Canapi Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr. Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Trish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. W alm art #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Abram Sparrow, Dept, Mgr Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS 13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marry Wine, Assistant CAO Automotive Va3erie Reyes, ICS Lead Supe. 2r�Shift Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section I OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., Mav 27.2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Cleric, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requireMents. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. May 27, 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or.fmal processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Denis Law City of qw Mayor � 1 i Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator May 25, 2010 Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION — WALMART EXPANSION (FILE NO. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF) Dear Mr. Kaufman, Staff respectfully request clarification of a condition included in the Examiner's Decision for the Walmart Expansion, dated May 13, 2010. The Examiner's Decision includes a condition (Condition #4) requiring the applicant to "to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4- 075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 foot height limitations." The condition is unclear as to whether or not the applicant is required to comply with the newer lighting regulations, for both proposed and existing lighting standards. Based on findings included in the report it appears the condition is meant to require only the newly constructed light standards to meet the 25 -foot height requirement, and does not apply to the existing 40 - foot lighting standards. Therefore, staff requests clarification of the condition as the whether or not the newer lighting regulations, including the 25 -foot height limitation, are intended to p_qly apply to the 3-5 additional standards and not the existing 40 -foot lighting standards. Please contact me at (425) 430-7219 should you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Roc a Timmons, Associate Planner cc: Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Contact Owner Parties of Record Yellow File Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) } ss. County of King ) ` U mKrLng first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 13'�' day of May 2010, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Ln �i Signa `J� SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this IS day of 52010. • Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at �Ttl&4 te�2 , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Walmart Expansion LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss. County of King ) J !�yl PAPA 4eing first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the l 3ch day of May 2010, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. �--Av 4 SignaturYi . V SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 2010. W Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Residing at , therein. Application, Petition or Case No.: Walmart Expansion LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H The Decision or Recommendation contains a complete list of the Parties of Record. C7 HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT C� OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes OWNER: Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, #509 Bellevue, WA 98004 CONTACT/APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: Jeff Chambers PACLAND 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste, 305 Seattle, WA 98109 Walmart Expansion Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA 10-009, ECF, SA -H 743 Rainier Ave S May 13, 2010 SUMMARY OF REQUEST. Site Plan Review for the construction of a additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which would include 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area for outdoor retail sales. SUMMARY OF ACTION: Development Services Recommendation: Approve DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on April 20, 2010. PUBLIC BEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the April 27,20-10 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 27, 2010, at 9:00 a. in. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Project file containing the original Exhibit No. 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map application, reports, staff comments and other documentation pertinent to this request. Drofak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 2 The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7h Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern faradc to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 4: Landscape Plan Exhibit No. 5: Tree Inventory Plan Exhibit No. 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit No. 7: North and South Elevations Exhibit No. 8: Large Pae Short Plat Plan (9 pages) The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Rocale Timmons Associate Planner, Community and Economic Development, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057. The site is located just west of Rainier Avenue S and Hardie Avenue SW between SW 7h Street and S Grady Way. The site is 13.6 acres and is zoned Commercial Arterial and is located within the Commercial Land Use Designation. The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing Walmart retail facility in the amount of 16,000 square feet. The applicant is further proposing a reduction in the Garden Center from 9,000 square feet to approximately 4,000 square feet. An area would be set aside just north of the expansion area for outdoor retail sales. The Examiner questioned conforming or non -conforming, parking is an example of non -conforming as well as other aspects of the project. Can a legal non -conforming use be expended under the Code? Ms. Timmons stated that as long as it is not more than a 50% expansion; with relation to the parking stalls there are approximately 618 existing, the applicant is proposing only 127 new parking stalls. The applicant is proposing improvements to existing landscaping, lighting and drainage from the site. Access would continue via the current curb cuts along the perimeter streets. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated with 6 measures. No appeals were filed. The project does comply with all policies within the Commercial Corridor Comprehensive Plan designation. The project is located within the Commercial Arterial Zoning designation and this project is permitted within this zone. Lot coverage for this site is limited to 65%, the applicant is proposing 840,000 square foot footprint on the site, which results in a lot coverage of 25.3%. CA zone requires a 10 -foot minimum front yard setback with a maximum 15 -foot setback. There are no other setbacks required in this zone. The front yard setback would be assessed from Hardie Avenue SW and Rainier Avenue S. The proposal does not comply with the maximum front yard setback; however the expansion does increase the conformity of the project in that it moves closer towards Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S, which then does not require a variance. A short plat was recently approved for the site which would allow Walmart to site structure on its own building pad. The short plat has not been recorded and this must be done. Height in the CA zone is limited to 50 feet; the applicant has proposed a maximum height of 32' 4". The applicant has provided various roof shapes and heights along the eastern faradc to break up the massing of the structure. There are 99 existing trees on site; the applicant proposes to remove 15 trees. Mature vegetation on site should be retained as much as possible. The existing parking layout presented a challenge to the layout; the spacing of the landscape islands could not be reorganized. The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 3 frontages. The applicant has proposed to enhance all existing landscaping in the interior as well as the perimeter of the site. Approximately 55 feet of landscaping would be provided along Rainier Ave as well as 20 feet of landscaping along SW 7`h Street. The code requires intervening landscaping every six parking stalls and that is being done in the parking area. Thirty-five feet of landscaping must be provided for each parking stall, 745 parking stalls are proposed, which requires 26,000 square feet in landscaping. The applicant has proposed 30,000 square feet of landscaping thereby meeting the requirements. Fire and Traffic mitigation fees have been imposed by ERG. The applicant has applied for a Refuse Modification in order to reduce the refuse area from 1,500 square feet to 30 cubic yards. The modification was granted administratively due to the proposed compactor that is engineered for high volume usage. No screening detail has been provided and must be submitted to show compliance with refuse and recycle standards. Staff has received several letters as well as a petition that demonstrate the community support for this expansion. Property values in the area are anticipated to be maintained or increased as a result of the project. Vehicular circulation was looked at and found that the access would remain the same as currently used by the retail facility. There was one existing pedestrian connection that runs from the center of the east elevation to Rainier Ave S, the applicant has proposed to increase the width of that pedestrian walkway as well as enhance it with pedestrian scale lighting. An additional pedestrian connection has been proposed from the northern portion of the structure to SW 7t' Street. The applicant has proposed 3-5 additional parking lot lighting poles with a height of 40 -feet that will match the existing lights on site and surrounding properties. A lighting plan needs to be provided showing both existing and new lighting plans that conform with spillover requirements of the Code. A drainage report has been submitted stating that the proposed project improvements generate less than .5 cubic feet per second; therefore, the project is exempt from the flow control requirements. Water quality treatment has been provided in the form of a new bio-swale just north of the expanded parking lot area. The project is located within Design District D, which includes minimum design standard that are to be met and if not met, they must demonstrate how they meet the intent of the code. The proposal complies with the Urban Design District D. The proposed elevations meet the Site Design and Building Location minimum standards with the exception of refuse and recycle elevations. Those were discussed earlier. The proposal does not comply with the minimum standards for parking and vehicular access mainly due to the location of existing surface parking. The situation is existing and the applicant has met the intent to reduce the visual impacts of the parking lot with the use of landscaping. The proposal does comply with all minimum standards within the pedestrian environment. Most of the minimum standards have been met for landscaping. A landscaping maintenance surety device and an irrigation plan must be provided. There are many limitations on building architecture due to the need for altering an existing structure, the intent for the front elevation has been met due to the visual interest provided with the exception of the human scale element. Additional elements could be provided in the area and staff has recommended that that be done. Additional elements need to be provided to the eastern elevation of the facade. A building materials and colors board must be provided to staff in order to insure that quality materials have been provided. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 4 Jack McCullough, McCullough & Hill, 701 5`s Avenue, Ste. 7220, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that the applicant looked at a larger expansion, the site is very tight and decided that they could not make it work. The proposal presented today seems appropriate for the site. There has been a lot of attention to the landscaping, some of the planters have been expanded rather than building more landscape bays. The parking requirements of the code do create a range within which the project must fall, one is to look at code compliance for this project and then looking at parking from a demand point of view. The 745 stalls proposed for this site are necessary in order to provide an adequate level of parking to support this facility. Jeff Chambers, PACLAND, 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste. 305, Seattle, WA 98109 stated he wanted to discuss some of the items previously brought forward. In relation to landscaping, during the discussions with staff they expressed interest in definitely keeping as many of the mature trees as possible on the site. The current sidewalk is approximately 3-4 feet wide, that walkway would be widened out and some compact stalls were created in that location. The landscape islands went from approximately six feet wide to approximately 12 feet wide. Rather than adding additional islands to the site, which constrains the stall size, they agreed with staff to expand the existing islands to 10-12 feet wide. By doing that they do meet all code requirements. Some parking stalls were lost along Hardie with the proposed new landscaping. Other parking stalls were lost with the additional landscaping along 7t", which was part of the request from staff. The proposed trash compactor is widely used by many large stores and has been working very efficiently in those facilities. In addition to the compactor there is a bale and pallet area for additional storage. The existing 40 -foot lights give a more uniformed lighting level across the site. Industry standard encourages parking areas around four foot candles and front of store areas around 10 -foot candles. The current parking lot meets that uniformity. When 25 -foot lights are used the spacing ends up about 50 -feet apart, the uniformity of the lighting goes from one foot candle to about 8-9 foot candles throughout the parking lot. This creates a bigger safety concern with lighting being too bright and too dark. The number of lighting standards would increase, there would be more conduits and circuits added to the parking lot. The only lights being added to this site are in the area where the Billy McHale's restaurant was located. Usunobun Osagie, Larry D. Craighead Architects, 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222, Dallas, TX 75202 stated that they would be able to make the suggested changes to the fagade with a variety of colors for a more pleasant look. The refuse area will meet the screening requirements as well as gates and a roof on the compactor area. The design of this area does allow for a portion of the roof to remain open for ventilation. The will continue to work with staff to create a workable resolution in regards to the elevation, providing pedestrian amenities and finalize a workable solution that will make everyone happy. They want the City to be happy with this expansion. Jack McCullough stated that they were going to take an existing facility that is non -conforming in some respects and make it better. Code does not require full conformance. They are consistently working with staff to make the project better. Kayren_Kittrick, Community and Economic Development stated that most utilities were covered under the Short Plat. All the issues regarding storm drains etc have been worked out to the City's satisfaction. It is still subject to final review and permitting. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 5 Parking lot lighting usually does not come under her control, at the time the Walmart was originally built, they were subject to the foot candles being at a Ievel that was common throughout the City at that time. It mostly was a matter of a nice even distribution of light. A lighting plan should be provided, showing that the light is not going to wander off the property. There is some concern about excess lighting on the drainage swale on the west, that lighting should not be increased as it could interfere with the existing bioswale as well as the new one. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:56 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Jeff Chambers for PACLAND, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit 91. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. There was no opposition from the public regarding the subject proposal. 6. The subject site is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South. The subject site includes the existing Walmart store and parking area as well as the former Billy McHale's building and parking area. The site does not include other buildings or parking areas to the north, south and east that includes the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's. 7. The map element of the Comprehensive PIan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of commercial corridor uses and employment area valley use, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial) and 1M- (Medium Industrial). The vast majority of the subject site is zoned for commercial uses with the most westerly portion of the site limited to IM uses. The subject site is also governed by the Urban Design District D guidelines. 9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1745 enacted in February 1959. 10. The underlying ownership has submitted a short plat to separate the existing and future Walmart areas from surrounding properties. That short plat has been approved but not recorded. 11. The subject site is approximately 594,553 square feet or 13.6 acres. 12. The subject site is essentially level. Drofiak Apartments Site .Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 6 13. The subject site contains 99 significant trees. Code requires 10% of the trees be retained. The applicant proposes removing 5 coniferous trees and 10 deciduous trees or 15 trees in total. The trees that would be removed are in the expansion areas north and east of the main building. Additional landscaping is proposed (see below). 14. Access to the subject site will be unchanged. 15. The applicant proposes remodeling and expanding the existing Walmart complex. The existing complex contains approximately 134,352 square feet of retail space along with 9,000 square feet in its garden center. The applicant proposes adding 16,000 square feet to the store and reducing its garden space to 5,000 square feet. The expansion will occur in five areas. There will be two expansion areas along the eastern or front facade near the main entrance and near the southeast corner of the front facade. The other additions will be a large area along the north facade near its northeast corner and two smaller additions near the northwest corner of the building. The applicant also proposes adding 127 additional parking stalls to its complement of 618 stalls for a total of 745 stalls. 16. The applicant proposes changes to its front or eastern facade to provide more visual interest. The applicant will remodel the inside of the store as part of its proposed expansion and modification. There will be two entrances into the store from the east. The two entrances will generally divide access to the general merchandize areas and the grocery areas of the store. The entrances will be defined by parapet rooflines that curve in wing -like facades with clerestory windows on either side of a larger curving central entrance wall with a focal point niche containing a larger tree alcove. These vestibule areas would contain seating and trash cans. The roofline will rise to approximately 32 feet 4 inches. 17. The applicant will be redeveloping the garden area to contain more retail space. The new garden center will be located along the northern end of the eastern facade. The roofline along the north will be 21 feet 4 inches matching the existing roofline or that facade's tallest extreme. 18. The applicant requested and was granted a modification to allow a smaller than required refuse and recycling area due to its proposed use of an efficient, high volume compactor unit. These units have been demonstrated to handle waste/recycling materials in other locations. The unit will be located in an area away from public areas of the subject site. The screening details were not submitted for this aspect of the proposal. 19. The facade treatment includes additional modulations, the changes in the height of elements along eastern roofline as well as a mix of facade materials. Lighting is also proposed to add to visual interest around the prominent facades. Staff recommended additional elements be added to enhance the appearance and feel of the building for pedestrians on the subject site. In addition, staff wanted the applicant to submit materials boards to verify the quality and appearance features of the exterior treatments. 20. The CA Zone requires a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet in order to locate structures closer to the street and reduce the visual impact of parking along thoroughfares. The proposed expansion would not comply with this requirement providing a setback of approximately 555 feet from Hardie -Rainier. Staff found that since the expansion encompasses a small portion of the proposed existing complex it does not trigger a need to conform to the newer, current standards. The setbacks on the north, west and south are respectively 150 feet, 65 feet and 15 feet. Yard coverage of 65 percent is permitted whereas the proposed coverage is 25.3 percent meeting code requirements. The proposed maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches meets the height limit of the CA Zone's 50 feet. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 7 21. As noted, the applicant will be increasing the number of parking stalls, mainly in the northern portion of the site in the area where Billy McHaIe's was located. Code permits a range of parking and the proposed use's range would be between 601 stalls to 751 stalls. The applicant proposes just under the top range of 745 stalls. The applicant's review of parking on site demonstrates the need for the larger complement of parking. 22. Code requires 26,075 square feet of landscaping for the 745 stall parking lots. The applicant proposes 65,690 square feet or approximately 40,000 square feet of additional landscaping than required. The new parking areas will comply with code as to the amount and spacing of interior landscaping. The older parking areas will have enlarged landscape pads but will take advantage of the existing conditions to maintain landscape spacing in parking aisles. The applicant suggested that attempting to modify the existing configuration would eliminate many of the larger, mature trees located in the parking areas. Perimeter landscaping already meets code and contains some of the larger, mature trees. These landscape areas will be enlarged although they are limited to ingress and egress areas, the perimeter of the site is dominated by third party properties, not part of the subject site or expansion plans. 23. The development will increase traffic approximately 600 trips per day. The ERG imposed a mitigation fee to help offset the impacts of those additional trips. 24. The uses surrounding the subject site are restaurants, a bank, tire store, retail pad and car dealership. Staff noted that the proposed use has been and will continue to be compatible with these various uses. 25. Stormwater will be handled by providing for an additional bio-swale to treat surface parking lot runoff. The proposal does comply with the impervious surface requirements of Code. There was concern that lighting might affect the functioning of the bioswales. 26. As noted, the subject site straddles two zoning districts and two comprehensive plan use areas but the vast majority of the subject site is governed by the CA Zone and the Commercial Corridor policies. Staff determined as a practical matter that the majority zoning, CA, and use designations, Commercial Corridor, should be applied. 27. The existing parking areas are currently served by light standards that are approximately 40 feet tall. Code currently restricts lighting standards to not more than 25 feet in height. The applicant has proposed matching the existing pole height. The applicant noted that the taller lights provide better overall lighting. Any change to light standards should be done by code amendment. There is nothing critical or unique to justify deviation from the adopted standards. Those standards apply to all development and if they are inadequate then they would be inadequate for all development. While the expanded parking area will be part of the existing complex, the more aesthetically pleasing shorter poles should prevail as it would require strict observation for someone to notice the asymmetry of pole heights throughout the complex. 28. The following Table contains staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the Design District D Guidelines: aj Review of Compliance to District `D' Design Guidelines; The site is located within Design District V. The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal Ir L J Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-1 i.2, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 8 meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. ✓ Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing ✓ a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: 0 Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: L.UA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 9 Intent, To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. S. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they, are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3 100E7ei. Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Not Compliant Staff Comment: Elevations far the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed on all sides, including the roof and screened Not Compliant around their perimeter by a wall or fence and have self-closing doors. Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Not Compliant Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: if the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility_ b. Gateways: Not Applicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front Not Compliant property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comment: The Caulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 10 Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave 5/5R 167 is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SW 7`6 St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials, therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent Not Compliant properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. f Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080177, Landscape Reguirementsj. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Not Applicable C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ve Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment_ ./ Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties. J Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 11 trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). ✓ (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. ✓ (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. ✓ Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. ✓ Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070. Landscaping). ✓ Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge^ and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). ✓ Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. ✓ Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. ✓ Minimum Standard: Surface parkins areas shall be screened by landscaping In order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalkfsee illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.1-13b). ✓ Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Drofiak Apartments Site Flan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 12 Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tali at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. Staff Comment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows; (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space V-1 (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing. V, (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. ✓ (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. ✓ (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. ,i Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To entourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 13 retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Staff Comment, The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the approximate 500 foot eastern fapade which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with on iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fc�ode thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7`h St facing facade has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern fagode includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest which break up the wall plane, there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern fagade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wail over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank wails shall be treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment_ See comments above. Drofialc Apartments Site Plan Approval pile No.: LUA-04-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 .Page 14 ✓ Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern fa;ade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: ✓ (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. ✓ (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. ✓ (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. +% (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 4. Building Materials: Drofiaic Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 15 Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: it appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some calor scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Stott Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location_ N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include: i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. N/A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lightinia regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lightine,_Exterior On -Site. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 .Page 16 Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See comments above Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Staff Comment: See comments above CONCLUSIONS: The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. The proposal is appropriate given either the "employment area valley" or "commercial corridor" goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of an existing retail operation could create new jobs and certainly help revitalize the commercial uses of the subject site. The use could also attract patrons to other businesses on this large commercial block. The new design features will also create a more aesthetic focal point in this area of the City. The existing use, a large "big box" establishment does not meet current code requirements for the setback along its frontage street, the Hardie -Rainier complex. Only an incredibly large expansion or complete rebuild could move the front of the store to the street and parking to the rear. The proposed approximately 16,000 square foot expansion cannot be expected to accomplish the maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. As a practical matter the tradeoff is allowing a reasonably well-designed expansion and revitalized store or probably permitting no change weighs in favor of the excessive setback. The building and expansion in its other particulars, height, other setbacks and lot coverage meets the Zoning Code. Similarly, the parking lot landscaping standards would require a complete redesign of the parking area for what is a modest remodel. In addition, attempting to meet the newer standards would remove the larger, mature specimen trees. Compliance with Building and Fire codes will be determined when actual permits for construction are submitted. 4. The two-story facade of the main complex is not substantially higher than the surrounding uses and the Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 17 large, somewhat landscaped parking areas provide wide separation permitting light and air to enter the site and surrounding sites. The extensive setback, while non -conforming as to the Zoning Code, actually helps the transition between a rather large big box store and its neighboring uses. The neighboring uses to the south, north and east work to ease the transition to the much larger background Walmart store. The new facade treatment with the curved parapets also soften the visual lines of the store. Parking is the dominant feature and while the older landscape spacing does not meet code, the existing larger trees do help to soften the appearance and the parking islands will be enlarged and the newer parking will meet code. The expanded building will probably be a better neighbor than the existing more utilitarian store. Staff noted that while the site has an exceptional amount of parking, the applicant has gone beyond code requirements to provide additional interior landscaping and perimeter landscaping to shield and buffer the parking lot. 5. The new facade features, the new landscape feature at the front of the store and the new landscaping in the northern parking areas all help to mitigate impacts of the development on the site. As noted, parking is a dominant feature and frankly, it is hard to disguise the large surface parking areas. The applicant does propose approximately 4,000 square feet of landscaping in excess of the parking lot landscape requirements and over 65,000 square feet of overall landscaping. Pedestrian links through the site and to the surrounding sidewalks help mitigate some of the impacts and do allow pedestrians to circulate on the site and to and from the site. The redevelopment of the site should preserve or enhance overall property values. 7. Access to the subject site will not be changed. The additional parking, while obviously adding to the asphalt jungle, should also reduce the number of cars circling the lot looking for parking thereby cutting down air pollution and conflicts with pedestrians walking to and from parking stalls. As indicated, pedestrian pathways and amenities near the front of the store have been enhanced. While the store has a large footprint, it is rather low -scale and therefore, adequate light and air should be available to adjoining uses that share the block with the applicant's use. 9. The store is served by existing urban infrastructure. The applicant will be providing additional stormwater treatment with an additional bioswale. 10. In addition to the general site plan review criteria discussed above, there are District Guidelines that are applicable to the subject site. The staff analysis is contained above and except as noted or highlighted in this discussion, that analysis and its conclusions are adopted by this decision. Staff has noted that in most cases the applicant's modest expansion meets the guidelines and the minimum standards or has justified why their project may not precisely meet some of the standards. 11. The applicant sought and received a modification for the refuse and recycling center and equipment and it appears that the proposed area and methods meet the objectives of the standards. The enclosure will have to meet the standards for containment and screening. 12. As noted above, the 16,000 square feet of remodeled area cannot be expected to close the distance to the street to 15 feet. Taking advantage of the building's existing placement in the overall block and its surrounding stores help achieve a reasonable proposal. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be used where smaller or stunted trees might exist. The additional or better landscaping can help fill in the large space between the street and actual store. 13. The applicant did not submit appropriate lighting details with the exception of proposing light standards Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 18 that do not meet code specifications. There is no reason for the applicant to deviate from the existing standards limiting lighting poles to 25 feet. As discussed above, visitors to the site will more than likely not notice the difference in height and changes in zoning and standards should be applied unless there is an overriding reason not to be conforming. The limited aesthetic of shorter poles in the new parking lot does not provide any justification. If the lighting standards that City has adopted are inadequate then that should be addressed in an amendment to code. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards. 14. On the other hand, the loss of mature trees to redesign a compliant parking lot is not an adequate tradeoff. The applicant will be providing more parking lot Iandscaping than required and will be supplementing the existing landscaping on the limited perimeter areas of the site. The applicant will have to meet irrigation requirements for all landscaping. 15. Staff noted that the facade could use more relief to break up the various facades of the building. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 16. In conclusion, while it might be nice to start again and comply with newer code provisions, the proposed expansion is modest overall and clearly enhances the existing building's appearance. The additional landscaping will also enhance the site. "Big Box" appears to invite "Big Parking" but as noted, additional parking cuts down on circulating cars and their attendant noise and pollution. Maybe the next remodel will include an elevated parking structure to reduce the sea of asphalt. DECISION: The proposed site plan for the expansion is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. The applicant shall comply with the newer standards including 25 -foot height limitations. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. Drofiak Apartments Site PIan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 .Page 19 6_ The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current PIanning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 7. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 8. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. Decorative treatment in the way of contrasting or complementary paints or additional molding trim or other architectural features including additional glazing or false windows shall be used to comply with the guidelines. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. Additional or larger landscape specimens should be use where smaller or stunted trees might exist. ORDERED THIS 13'h day of May 2010. !� 4 r� � ' FRED J. KAUFAN HEARING EXAMWER TRANSMITTED THIS 13`h day of May 2010 to the parties of record: Rocale Timmons Community & Economic Dev City of Renton Jack McCulIough McCullough & Hill 701 5h Avenue, Ste. Seattle, WA 98104 Kayren Kittrick Community &. Economic Dev City of Renton Jeff Chambers PACLAND 7220 1505 Westland Ave N, Ste Seattle, WA 98109 Peter Bonnell Bonnell Family LLC 10047 Main Street, Ste. 509 Bellevue, WA 98004 Jeremy Smith, Manager Walmart 92516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Usunobun Osagic, Larry D. Craighead Architects 305 211 N Record Street, Ste. 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Sharon Ajibade, Asst. Manager Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Huy Tran, Asst. Manager Sophorn Chan, Assistant Anapogi Toleafoa, ICS Loader Walmart 42516 Walmart #2516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 99057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 r� �J Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 20 Tilesa L. Swehla, Mgr. Foods Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Sierra Schavrien, TCS Asssociate Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Nancy Chase, Dept Manager Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Cheryl Harrelson Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Josie Merveus, Dept. Mgr Walmart 92516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Irish Joy E. Layador, Ent. Supv. Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Traffaney Black, Mgr. Electronics Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Mark Goodman Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 William Carey, Jr. Safety Team Ld. Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 • Brandi Hansen, Mgr Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Tauasi Paaga, HR Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Francis Canapi Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Josh Smith, Mgr. Pets/Chem/Paper Levan, Dept. Mgr. Automotive Walmart #2516 Walmart 42516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Abram Sparrow, Dept. Mgr Valerie Reyes, ICS Lead Supv. 2 Shift Walmart 42516 Walmart #2516 743 Rainier Ave S 743 Rainier Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 TRANSMITTED THIS13th day of May 2010 to the following: Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietscb, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Dave Pargas, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Renton Reporter Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 P.m., May 27, 2010. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Drofiak Apartments Site Plan Approval File No.: LUA-09-112, SA -H May 13, 2010 Page 21 An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $250.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writine on or before 5:00 .m. May 27 2010. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be re uired prior to approval by City Council or final processiniz of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. Site Area: 594,553 Sp (13.6 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 150,244 SF F3 - ] S T23N R5E W 112 �mg r,mar'� eo M cc W _ e* i IM r IM lm-- IAV! FM N � � f co Im 11 co IL co IL IH n - ZONING MAP BOOK 113- 3a T23N PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11113/09 116f®�1Ya �� Mwnlwf YfY�� W k YrEm ere.aYtm�a�arkbYarx.rY.�.a 0 200 400 1H1 na kMa'4dL �y Mpyrvpruv* ' c ' © Feet o Cal I R -x I k I ,8 R-8 IBIT 2 3 3 19 T23N R5E W 112 S:i 19 sw,m at i l co avarm co IL IH n - ZONING MAP BOOK 113- 3a T23N PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11113/09 116f®�1Ya �� Mwnlwf YfY�� W k YrEm ere.aYtm�a�arkbYarx.rY.�.a 0 200 400 1H1 na kMa'4dL �y Mpyrvpruv* ' c ' © Feet o Cal I R -x I k I ,8 R-8 IBIT 2 3 3 19 T23N R5E W 112 S:i 19 r� 1 mp1a 111 , P'� x L_ f' list 1, i_' � .AILS LN m r ; ' .-wry � , `•'yy��6. Sr-rT ..,FT` .4..�...., .r :` - - ��� -'-�-Tom'..}rR---:�. Of•j r, I t�-. ,--�•ID `i1: 4 �_i r�Y _ R •_^�'�;=""w_-^ ti,CK. r�'..�:+"•�.r'.-�-I cc IL co x W d „Ki - 91z Y y mp1a 111 , P'� x L_ f' list 1, i_' � .AILS LN m r ; ' .-wry � , `•'yy��6. Sr-rT ..,FT` .4..�...., .r :` - - ��� -'-�-Tom'..}rR---:�. Of•j r, I t�-. ,--�•ID `i1: 4 �_i r�Y _ R •_^�'�;=""w_-^ ti,CK. r�'..�:+"•�.r'.-�-I cc IL co x W d „Ki - 91z Y y ti a 0 mu y 21 CD rlp0 0 �Pi • A a m c a 0 7 • IR 91 {a,s Q Q 0 O -h m O O O �I • 7 N T rrt d Q H S� I N a • 10 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 20th day of April, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Jeff Chambers Contact Peter Bonnell - Donnell Family, LLC Owner/Applicant Parties of Record See Attached (Signature of Sender): / STATE OF WASHINGTON Lt'006-%" SSCOUNTY OF KINGI certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker �Py signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the u mentioned in the instrument. q�N Dated: A ;),T U Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): 14, '-� C ccl__L 111� My appointment expires: k V,� + --2 ql 2 c Walmart Expansion LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H 4 Denis Law � Ci O� Mayor 4— i Department of Community and Economic Development April 20, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Jeff Chambers PACL.AN D 1505 Westlake Avenue N #305 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Chambers: This letter is to inform you that the appeal period ended April 16, 2010 for the Environmental . Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated for the above -referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination therefore, this decision is final. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures outlined in the Report and Decision dated March 22, 2010. Also, a Hearing Examiner Public Hearing has been scheduled for April 27, 2010, where Site Plan Conditions may be issued. The applicant or representatives) of the applicant are required to be present. Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Report to the Hearing Examiner for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, Roc a Timmons Ass ciate Planner Enclosure cc: Peter Bonnell - Bonnell Family, LLC J Owner(s) See attached / Party(ies) of Record Renton City Hall 9 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov E 0 PARTIES OF RECORD WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Jeff Chambers Peter Bonneil Jeremy Smith PACLAND Bonnell Family, LLC Manager 1505 Westlake Avenue N ste: 10047 Main Street ste: #509 Walmart #2516 #305 Bellevue, WA 98004 743 Rainier Avenue S Seattle, WA 98109 tel: (425) 453-1414 Renton, WA 98057 tel: (206) 522-9510 towner / applicant) tel: (425) 227-0407 eml: jchambers@pacland.com eml: jksmith.s02516.us@wal- (contact) mart.com (party of record) Sharon Ajibade Huy Tran Luena Layapox Assistant Manager Assistant Manager Walmart Walmart , 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S (party of record) Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) Anapogi Toleafoa Sophorn Chan Tilesa L. Swehla I.C.S. Loader Associate Department Manager - Foods Walmart Walmart Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Traffaney Black Brandi Hansen Sierra Schavrien Department Manager - Department Manager - T.C.S. Associate Electronics Automotive Walmart Walmart Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Mark Goodman Tomasita Quinsay Tauasi Paaga Walmart Human Resources 743 Rainier Avenue S , Walmart Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) 743 Rainier Avenue S tel: (425) 227-0407 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) Nancy Chase William B. Carey, Jr. Francis Canapi Department Manager Safety Team Lead Walmart Walmart Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) (party of record) (party of record) Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 1 of 2) PARTIES OF RECORD WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Cheryl Harrelson Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Levan Department Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Valerie Reyes I.C.S. Lead Supervisor - 2nd Shift Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Benjamin Gonsalves I (party of record) Josle Merveus Department Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Aevnue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Josh Smith Department Manager - Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Abram Sparrow Department Manager Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Jose O. Martinez Irish Joy E. Layador Entertainment Zone Merchandise Supervisor (party of record) Walmart 743 Rainier Avenue S Renton, WA 98057 (party of record) Updated: 04/15/10 (Page 2 of 2) 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (e a =� : HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING April 27, 2010 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area used for outdoor retail sales. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern and eastern facades. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. HEX Agenda 4-27-10.doc 0 0 PUBLIC City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development HEARING PRELIMINARY REPORT TO THE EXAMINER A. SUMMARYAND PURPOSE OF REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 27, 2010 Project Name: Walmart Expansion Owner: Peter Bonnell; Bonnell Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004 Contact/Applicont: Jeff Chambers; PACLAND; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109 File Number: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Project Manager. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center and an approximate 16,000 square foot area used for outdoor retail sales. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern and eastern facades. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls; resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District V. Access to the site would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. Project Location: 743 Rainier Ave S Exist. Bldg. Area SF: 134,352 SF Proposed New Bldg. Area (gross): 16,000 SF Site Area: 594,553 SF (1.3.6 ac) Total Building Area GSF: 150,244 SF Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Pref ary Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2410 Page 2 of 20 B. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Project file ("yellow file") containing the application, reports, staff comments, and other material pertinent to the review of the project. Exhibit 2: Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Site Plan Exhibit 4: Landscape Plan Exhibit 5: Tree Retention Plan Exhibit 6: East and West Elevations Exhibit 7: North and South Elevations C. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: 2. Zoning Designation: 3. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: 4. Existing Site Use: S. Neighborhood Characteristics: Bonnell Family, LLC 10047 Main Street #509 Bellevue, WA 98004 Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) Big Box Retail !North: Columbia Bank & Renton School District Admire Bldg (CA Zone) East: Gas Station, Jimmy Mac's & Popeyes Restaurant (CA Zone) South: Strip Retail & Renton Honda (CA Zone) West: Lind Plaza & Renton Honda Service Center (!M Zone) 6. Access: Access would continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along SW 7'b St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. 7. Site Area: D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac) Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 4924 12/5/2001 Zoning N/A 5099 11/1/2004 Annexation N/A 1745 2/4/1987 Short Plat LUA09-158 N/A 2/22/2010 Columbia Bank LUA08-011 N/A 1/31/2008 Short Plat LUA04-027 N/A 3/2/2004 Bonnell Retail Development LUA95-175 N/A 10/23/1995 Lot Line Adjustment LUA95-173 N/A 10/19/1995 HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comn WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 E. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Utilities & Economic Development nary Report to the Hearing Examiner I LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 3 of 20 a. Water: There is an existing 12 -inch looped water main serving the site. b. Sewer: The site is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City of Renton line directly connected to the King County Metro line. c. Surface/Storm Water: The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site. 2. Streets: There are curb, gutters, and sidewalks for the entire perimeter of the project site. 3. Fire Protection: City of Renton Fire Department F. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070: Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-120: Commercial Development Standards d. Section 4-2-130: Industrial Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Special Districts a. Section 4-3-100: Urban Design Regulations — Design District 'D' 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-070: Landscaping Regulations c. Section 4-4-050: Parking, Loading, and Driveway Regulations d. Section 4-4-090: Refuse and Recyclables Standards 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060: Street Standards 5. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria a. Section 4-9-200: Site Plan Review 6. Chapter 11 Definitions G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element H. DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS: 1. Proiect Description/ Background The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner for the future construction of additions to the Renton Walmart retail store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the existing Garden Center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing store. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional landscaping HEX Report City of Renton Department of Commty & Economic Development WALMART EXPANSION A Hearing Date April 27, 2010 iary Report to the Hearing Examiner j LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 4 of 20 and improvements to drainage on-site. The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/SR 167 between SW 7t6 St and S Grady Way. The project site area currently totals 9.9 acres, however a short plat was recently approved for the site under a separate application (LUA09-158, SHPL-A). The purpose of the short plat was to segregate the Walmart site and any associated parking improvements from the Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's commercial pads. Once the proposed short plat is recorded, the subject site would total 13.6 acres in area. As part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales, currently sited on the north portion of the parcel abutting SW 7th St. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designations. In addition the parcel is located within Urban Design District 'D' and is therefore subject to design review. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, a 4,701 square -foot Garden Center and a 16,000 square feet for and outdoor retail sales area. The current state of the proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from 515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. The proposal would result in a total of 745 surface parking stalls. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest point as measured from existing grade matching the height of the existing parapet. The design of the expansion area includes two new vestibules, on the eastern fagade, with clear glazing. Also included in the design are clerestory windows, pedestrian canopies with benches and trash cans beneath. The applicant is also proposing a raised planter box area with an iconic tree planted with surrounding bench seating at the center of the elevation. Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical areas on or near the site. The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued an approval of the modification. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 2, 2010 and ended on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the decision were filed. Staff has received several letters and a petition with numerous signatures demonstrating community support of the proposed expansion. 2. Environmental Review Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and SEPA (RCW 43.210, 1971 as amended), on March 22, 2010, the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M) for the Walmart Expansion. The DNS -M included 6 mitigation measures. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 2, 2010 and ended on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 3. Compliance with ERC Conditions Based on an analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) issued the following mitigation measures with the Determination of Non -Significance — Mitigated: HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cam 1 WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 & Economic Development Report to the Nearing Examiner LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 5 of 20 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010, during project construction. 3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. 4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. 4. Staff Review Comments Representatives from various City departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development. These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. 5. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria The Site Development Plan Review Criteria set forth in Section 4-9-200 of the Renton Municipal Code forms the basis of the Site Plan Review, as follows: aj Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Designation The site is designated Commercial Corridor (CC) & Employment Area Valley (EAV) on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Lands designated Commercial Corridor (CC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map are intended to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities, and boulevard treatment. Lands in the EAV designation are intended to allow the gradual transition of the Valley from traditional industrial and warehousing uses to more intensive retail service and office activities. However, a majority of the site is designated CC; a very small area on the western portion of the site is designated EAV. For the purposes of the Site Plan Review the CC policies were used to review the proposal. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies as long as all conditions of approval are complied with: Land Use Element Objective LU-GGG: Guide redevelopment of land in the Commercial Corridor designation with Commercial Arterial zoning, from the existing strip commercial forms into more concentrated forms, in which structures and parking evolve from the existing suburban form, to more efficient urban configurations with cohesive site planning. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ory Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION is LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 6 of 20 Policy LU -358: Parking areas should be landscaped (including street trees, buffers, berms), especially along roadways, to reduce visual impacts. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy LU -369: Development should be designed to consider potential adverse impacts on adjacent, less intensive uses, e.g. lighting, londscoping, and setbacks should all be considered during design. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Community Design Element Policy CD -17: Development should be designed (e.g. building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met Policy CD -21: Development should have buildings oriented toward the street or a common area rather than toward parking lots. ® Policy Objective Met ❑ Not Met b) Compliance with the Underlying Zoning Designation The subject site is designated Commercial Arterial (CA) & Medium Industrial (IM) on the City of Renton Zoning Map. However, a majority of the site is zoned CA; a very small area on the western portion of the site is designated IM. For the purposes of the Site Plan Review the CA standards were used to review the proposal. Use: The subject site is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA). The purpose of the CA zone is to evolve from "strip commercial" linear business districts to business areas characterized by enhanced site planning, incorporating efficient parking lot design, coordinated access, amenities and boulevard treatment. The CA zone provides for a wide variety of indoor and outdoor retail sales and services. Big box retail sales and outdoor retail sales are permitted uses in the CA zone. Lot Coverage: The CA zoning designation allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent of the site area. The proposed building footprint of 140,896 square feet on the 594,553 square foot commercial building pad results in a building lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The proposed structure complies with the development standard for lot coverage. Setbacks: The CA zoning designation would require a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet and a maximum front yard setback of 15 feet. No other side or rear setbacks are required. The applicant has depicted lot lines that reflect an approved Short Plat (LUA09-158,SHPL-A), submitted as a separate application, which has not been recorded. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall be required to record the short plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit application, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. The property has frontage on three streets; SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S/SR167. For the purposes of setbacks the front yard will be considered Hardie Ave SW and Rainier Ave S/SR167 with a side yard along -a -street for SW 7th St. The proposed building would be set back from the front property line approximately 555 feet at the closest point; from the Garden Center to Hardie Ave SW. An approximate 150 -foot side yard setback is proposed from the pending north property line shared with the Columbia Bank property. The structure is setback approximately 65 feet from the western property line and 15 feet from the southern property line; these setbacks would not change as a result of the proposal. The existing and proposed portions of the structure, do not comply with the maximum front yard setback requirement. However, as the situation is existing and the proposed expansions would not increase the non -conformity of the structure; a variance is not necessary. The proposal complies with all other setback regulations of the zone. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli 'nary Report to the Hearing Examiner WAL MART EXPANSION [UA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 7 of 20 Height: The CA zone allows a maximum building height of 50 feet. The bulk of the one story building has a flat roof with a height of 21 feet and 4 inches. The tallest point of the building would be the top of the curved parapet on the eastern elevation extending above the flat roof; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches. Two additional flat parapets extending above the flat roof are also depicted on the eastern elevation, to the north and south of the curved parapet; which would have heights of 25 feet and 8 inches. The proposed building design includes varying roof heights, material and roof shapes along the front facade in order to break up larger architectural elements into smaller increments. The proposal complies with the height requirements of the CA zone. Tree Retention: Renton Municipal Code requires that 10% of the trees on the site be retained. The applicant submitted a tree inventory plan as part of the site plan application. There are 99 existing trees located within the existing surface parking lot and the perimeter of the site. Of the 99 trees on site, 15 are proposed for removal; 5 coniferous and 10 deciduous. The trees proposed for removal would be located just north of the proposed expanded area in addition to a few trees located just east of the structure. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover thereby exceeding the tree retention requirements of the code. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation, the existing location and spacing of landscape islands on site had to be maintained. Therefore the parking stalls, which do not comply with the dimensional requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. RMC 4-4-130 provides protection measures in order to preserve and protect the trees to be retained in those areas that are being disturbed during utility and building construction. The trees shall be fenced off around the drip line and a sign posted that the trees to be preserved and the location of the trees shall be indicated on all utility construction plan sheets. The fencing shall be in place prior to the issuance of any utility construction permits and shall remain until the final inspection of the new building is complete. Landscaping: The CA zone requires a 10 -foot landscape strip along all street frontages. The landscaping requirements apply to the subject site's Hardie Ave SW, SW 7 1 St and Rainier Ave S/SR 167 frontages. All frontages have fully established landscaping with full-sized trees. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted showing additional area and enhancements to the existing landscape buffers along the perimeter of the site and the interior of the site. Perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 and Hardie Ave SW is proposed at a width of approximately 55 feet and SW 7th St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. In the expanded parking area, the applicant is proposing intervening landscaping every six parking stalls. Additional trees within the frontages would be spaced at 35 feet on center and will reach a mature height of approximately 35 feet. The proposed landscaping would consists of several different plant species including Palo Alto sweetgum and 'Cascade Snow' flowering cherry trees. Shrubbery will consists of dwarf winged euonymus, rhododendron, shrub rose, dense spreading yew and 'Fairy Queen' spiraea. In addition there are several groundcovers proposed consisting of ornamental grasses and creeping mahonia. The 'Palo Alto' sweetgum is proposed in several areas in order to maintain consistency with existing vegetation on site. Within the proposed surface parking lot, 35 square feet of landscaping per parking space would be required for parking lots with 100 or more parking stalls. Based on the proposal of 745 surface parking stalls, a minimum of 26,075 square feet of landscaping would be required within the surface parking areas. The submitted landscape analysis indicates that a total of 65,690 square feet of landscaping would be provided on site; of which approximately 30,000 square feet would be located within the surface parking lot. All landscaping, especially the retained mature vegetation; would be used to reduce the aesthetic impact of the surface parking lot. As proposed the parking lot landscaping would exceed the minimum requirement. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cam ity & Economic Development Preii nary Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 8 of 20 Underground sprinkler systems are required to be installed and maintained for all landscaped areas. The sprinkler system shall provide full water coverage of the planted areas specified on the plan. A detailed landscape plan and irrigation plan will need to be submitted and approved prior to building permit approval. Access: Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points along SW 7`h St; one full access point along Hardie Ave SW and SW Grady Way. There is a right-in/right-out access point on Rainier Ave 5/SR 167. The site contains private internal roads and access easements which connect to the public street system. There is no proposal to modify the access for the site. Parking: The parking regulations require a specific number of off-street parking stalls be provided based on the amount of square footage dedicated to certain uses. The followine ratios would be annlicable to the site: Use Square Footage of Use RatioRequired Spaces Big Box Retail 150,244 SF Min: 4 spaces / 1,000 SF Max: 5 spaces/ 1,000 SF Min: 601 Max: 751 Based on these use requirements, at least 601 parking spaces would be required in order to meet code with no more than 751 spaces. The applicant proposes to provide no more than 745 spaces within the surface parking lot at its peak; when the outdoor sales area is not in use. Of the 745 parking stalls, 618 stalls are existing. The applicant complies with the parking stall requirement for big box retail and outdoor retail sales. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain a mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore, existing parking stalls are not compliant with the dimensional requirements of the parking code. The stalls are 9 x 18 feet instead of the required 9 x 20 feet. However, as the situation is existing a parking modification is not necessary. All new parking stalls comply with the dimensional requirements of the zone. Aisle widths of 24 feet have been provided for the 90 degree parking stalls with a two-way traffic flow. Refuse and Recyclable Deposit Areas: The applicant has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and Recyclable standards in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area. Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance due to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x [155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code. However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required and a modification from the code requirement was requested. The applicant has proposed the use of a self contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued an approval of the modification. A 14 -day appeal period commenced on April 2, 2010 and ended on April 16, 2010. No appeals of the decision were filed. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the facility would be located north of the expansion area away from the pedestrian environment. Specific screening elevations and details were not submitted with the land use application. In order to review consistency with the design of the primary structure staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ' ary Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMARr EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 �i Page 9 of 20 around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. Signage — There is existing signage for the building currently on the project site. Alterations and additions to existing signage were not reviewed as part of the Site Plan Review. Signage will be reviewed under a separate permit. c) Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The building would maintain its same location in the western portion of the project site with surface parking areas located along the north, west and east sides of the building. The building's orientation will also remain the same, the entrance facing east towards Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed project will result in an expansion of the existing retail space, the demolition of an existing restaurant, paving of the commercial pad north of the expansion area with associated landscaping, lighting and parking improvements. The applicant has confined development of the expansions to the same general area of the existing facility. City staff does not anticipate any adverse impact on surrounding properties and uses as long as the conditions of approval are complied with. Lind Plaza, a warehouse and office space, is located on the property abutting to the west and is zoned Medium industrial (IM). All other surrounding properties are zoned Commercial Arterial. Jimmy Mac's and Popeye's are located to the east of the proposed project site. Renton Honda and a strip retail building are located on the properties abutting to the south. Columbia Bank and the Renton School District Administration building are located to the north of the subject site. The proposed expansion of Walmart is anticipated to be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses as permitted in the CA and IM zones. There are two street -facing elevations; the north and eastern facades. The eastern facade incorporates prominent architectural features including extending parapets, vestibules, clerestory windows, canopies and ornamental lighting. All of the architectural elements are used to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large facade. The pattern and proportion of windows and entrances along the eastern facade and the architectural elements along the northern facade enhance the building's architectural character. Increased setbacks and variable roof heights divide the building's mass into increments that correspond to the scale and massing of neighboring structures. However, additional human scale elements should be incorporated into the design of the eastern elevation in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. The northern facade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest which break up the wall plane there are additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements thereby breaking up the uniformity of the facade. Conditions of approval, related to the design elements, are recommended within the design review portion of this report. To ensure that quality materials are used staff will also be recommending the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of building permit review. While there is an exceptional amount of parking, the interior of the parking lot has been heavily landscaped in order to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. In addition the applicant has exceeded the landscaping requirements along the frontage of the site in order to buffer the large surface parking lot. The refuse and recyclable deposit areas for the facility would maintain their existing location, located on the north fagade of the existing building. With the use of a compactor, which has been engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated that there would be a reduction in the refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimization of odors. HEX Report City of Renton Department o/ Com ity & Economic Development Pre i ary Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA-HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 10 of 20 d) Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The proposed building footprint of 140,896 square feet on the 594,553 square foot site results in a building lot coverage of 25.3 percent. Therefore there would not be an over-concentration of structural improvements on the large site. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed building are also appropriate for the scale of the site. However, it is challenging to create a big box retail store compatible with smaller commercial uses in the vicinity especially in this case with the limitation of expanding on an existing structure. The applicant has achieved a compatibility with the expansions and fagade treatments which create architectural and visual interest that break up the massing of the structure. The proposed building would be located in the western portion of the project site with surface parking areas located along the north, west and east sides of the building. Prevailing winds in the area are from the southwest during most of the year (fall, winter and spring) as well as the direction of sunlight. While the structure will continue to cast shade on areas of the cross-walk and new plaza area in the afternoon; the site layout is existing. The applicant has taken measures to provide new ornamental lighting within the plaza area in order to adequately illuminate the area for pedestrians. The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. The existing vegetation, predominately located east of the structure, would receive adequate sun exposure and would not be affected by the proposed expansion. While there would be shade cast onto proposed trees north of the expanded area in the afternoon, the trees should receive adequate sunlight. In addition, the applicant has proposed vegetation consistent with that which is exist on site. A conceptual landscape plan was submitted showing enhancements and additional area to the Existing landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Due to the requirement and need for parking it is a challenge to limit the paved and/or impervious surfaces on the site. While there is an exceptional amount of parking; the lot has been heavily landscaped. In addition the applicant is proposing an additional bio-swale in order to provide additional water quality treatment. The applicant is taking special measures to protect landscaping from damage by vehicles and/or pedestrian traffic by providing defined pedestrian and vehicular areas. e] Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposed development is expected to conserve and possibly increase property values in the vicinity of the site. The development of the site provides improvements to infrastructure, landscaping, lighting and fagade treatments for the facility. fJ Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; The applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by the Transpo Group, dated October 2009. The proposed development is anticipated to generate additional traffic on the City's street system. Approximately 608 new average daily trips are estimated to be generated by the proposed expansion. In order to mitigate the anticipated increase in traffic on the City's street system, the City's Environmental Review Committee imposed a mitigation measure on the project requiring the payment of a Traffic Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. The site is situated between public arterials on the northern, eastern and southern property lines. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing curb cuts along SIN 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167_ There are three full access points along SW 7th St; one full access point along Hardie Ave SW and SW Grady Way. There is a right-in/right-out access point on Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The site development would include 745 parking stalls, of which 19 are ADA accessible; which complies with the parking requirements for the proposed use. Existing parking stalls are not compliant with the dimensional requirements of the parking code. The stalls are 9 x 18 feet instead of the required 9 x 20 feet. All new stalls would comply with the dimensional requirements HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cam ity & Economic Development Preli ' ory Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 _ Page 11 of 20 of the code. The applicant has proposed 90 degree head -in parking using a two way circulation pattern and aisle widths of 24 feet which also comply with the aisle width standards of the code. internal pedestrian connections to the existing public sidewalk network are proposed in order to provide safe and efficient pedestrian access throughout the site and to other abutting sites. The existing elevated concrete pedestrian walkway running through the center of the parking lot from the eastern facade to the eastern property line which abuts Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed to be widened and enhanced. The applicant is also proposing pedestrian scale lighting along the walkway. An additional pedestrian connection, between the subject site and SW 7th St, is also being provided. Pedestrian crosswalks, between the front facade and the parking lot, will be differentiated from the drive aisles through the use of concrete which will also be striped. The proposed development is expected to maintain safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicle circulation on the site. gj Provision of adequate light and air; The proposed building is designed appropriately to allow adequate light and air circulation to the building and the site. The design of the expansions would not result in excessive shading of the property. In addition, there is ample area surrounding the building to provide for normal airflow. Exterior onsite lighting, including security and parking lot lighting, would be regulated by code. Compliance with this code (RMC 4-4-075) ensures that all building lights are directed onto the building or the ground and can not trespass beyond the property lines. According to code, parking lot lighting fixtures are to be non -glare and mounted no more than 25 feet above the ground. The primary pedestrian connection to Rainier Ave S is proposed to have 12 and 14 -foot tall pedestrian lighting. Decorative sconces are proposed in order to illuminate the entrances to the building. Pedestrian lighting is used to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide for a safer environment for customers. Wall pack lights are proposed around the perimeter of the building for safety. The existing parking lot lighting is 40 -feet in height which does not comply with City code. The applicant is proposing to maintain consistency with existing lighting on site and surrounding properties. Approximately three new, 40 -foot, light poles are proposed in the expanded parking area. A lighting plan was not submitted with the application materials. Staff is recommending, as a condition of Site Plan Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. In addition the h) Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; There are potential short-term impacts to adjacent businesses (e.g., noise), which would result from the construction of the project. The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. The applicant has submitted a Construction Mitigation Plan which provides measures to reduce construction impacts such as noise, dust and traffic during construction. However, the ERC Committee issued a SEPA mitigation measure, stating if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant would be required to provide a noise and vibration study prior to construction permit approval. Upon completion of construction, the project is not expected to create additional noise or odor beyond that which is currently attributed to the existing Walmart retail store. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Cam rty & Economic Development Pre Dry Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA-HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 12 of 20 i) Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; Fire and Police Department staff have indicated that existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the subject proposal, subject to the applicant's payment of the necessary impact fees. As imposed by the ERC Committee, the applicant will be required to pay a Fire Mitigation Fee prior to the issuance of building permits. The site is served by the City of Renton for all utilities. There is an existing 12 -inch looped water main on the site serving the retail store. The site is served by a private on-site system which connects a City of Renton line directly to the King County Metro line. The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River Drainage watershed. Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the existing storm system in SW 7'" Street. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND. (dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. The post - developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more than the existing peak flow, therefore the project is exempt from flow control requirements. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces. j) Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight; The proposal is not expected to cause neighborhood deterioration and/or blight. Conversion of underutilized land will add value to the site. Coordinated site improvements including landscaping, parking, signage and lighting would be included as part of this development. kl Review of Compliance to District 'D' Design Guidelines; The site is located within Design District 'D'_ The proposed project must meet the intent of the Design Regulations where the regulations are applicable. As demonstrated in the table below the proposal meets the intent of the Design Regulations on the basis of individual merit if all conditions of approval are met. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. N/A Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that N/A promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comity & Economic Development WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 j&Lnary Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 13 of 20 HEX Report (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing ✓ a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network N/A of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. N/A Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. ✓ Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. ✓ Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long-established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a ✓ compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. S. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts ✓ on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, Not Compliant consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Staff Comment: Elevations for the refuse and recycle enclosure were not provided with the site HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comrrity & Economic Development WALAIART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 tory Report to the Hearing Examiner M LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 14 of 20 HEX Report plan application. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval the applicant submit elevations for the refuse and recyclable enclosure. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, garbage, recycling Not Compliant 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. StaffComment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. Staff Comment: See comments above. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. 6. Gateways: Not Applicable B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. Staff Comment: The bulk of the parking is existing and located in between the retail store and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 127 additional parking stalls of which most would be located to the north of the proposed expansion area and existing parking lot. The parking areas could have negative impacts on the pedestrian environment Not Compliant and the abutting properties without adequate landscape buffers. The applicant is proposing a substantial amount of interior parking lot landscaping in order to minimize to the visual impact in addition to increases in the width of landscape buffers on the perimeter of the site. Specifically perimeter landscaping along Rainier Ave S/SR 167 is proposed of a width of approximately 55 feet and SW e St would have a landscape strip width of approximately 20 feet. The applicant's proposal is successful in meeting the intent of the design standard to minimize the visual impact of the parking located between the building and the street. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Staff Comment: A lighting plan was not submitted as part of the application materials, Not Compliant therefore staff could not verify whether or not there would be light spillover onto adjacent properties. Staff has recommended, as a condition of approval, the applicant submit a site lighting plan to be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). 3. Structured Pa rki ng Garages: Not Applicable C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Corn ity & Economic Development Preli nary Report to the Hearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION i LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 15 of 20 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. ✓ Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. ✓ Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. ✓ Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties. ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Vol Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials. ✓ Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users_ Specifically: N/A (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). Or (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. V, (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety_ Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries_ V Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs_ These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 1S feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. HEX Report City of Renton Deportment of Com m-ty & Economic Development WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 iary Report to the Hearing Examiner I LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH Page 16 of 20 HEX Report Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. N/A Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. J Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-080F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet_ Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively_ Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. d Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation_ Not Compliant Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation_ Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as ❑ condition of approval, the applicant submit a landscape maintenance surety device for ❑ period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. +� Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Not Compliant (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Staff Comment: The applicant is proposing to retain most of the trees on site in order to maintain the mature tree cover. As a result of the preservation of the mature vegetation the existing location and spacing of landscape islands had to be maintained. Therefore the landscape spacing, which does not comply with the design requirements of the code, could not be brought into conformity. However, as the situation is existing a modification is not necessary. All new parking areas would comply with the minimum standard for tree spacing. (4) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. .� (5) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comrrity & Economic Development WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA10-009. ECF. 5A -HH Page 17 of 20 HEX Report (6) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. ✓ Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. Staff Comment: An irrigation plan was not submitted as part of the application. Therefore staff recommends; as a condition of approval, the applicant submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Not Applicable E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate. To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appear to be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). Staff Comment: The proposal does not include alterations to the blanks walls located on the southern and western facades. Therefore, the applicant would not be required to comply with the modulation requirements for the southern and western facades. The two street facing elevations, the north and eastern facades, are proposed to be expanded and enhanced with architectural elements, however these facades would also not comply with the minimum modulation requirement. The applicant is proposing two 80 foot vestibules along the approximate 500 foot eastern fa�ode which creates horizontal modulation at spacing which exceeds the 40 foot intervals. However, extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting and a large planter box with an iconic tree have been provided in order to distinguish the two building entrances as well as to break up the monotony of the large fagade. Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade thereby meeting the intent of the code. Alternatively, the SW 7t' St facing fagode has not provided adequate visual interest. The northern facade includes the use of three pilaster elements similar to that which is used to wrap around the Garden Center. While the proposed architectural elements add visual interest, which break up the wall plane, there ore additional elements that could be added or used to replace the pilaster elements which would reduce the apparent size of the facade. Therefore staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that the applicant submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, that depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited_ A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be HEX Report City of Renton Department of Comm ty & Economic Development WALMART EXPANSION Hearing Date April 27, 2010 ory Report to the Hearing Examiner LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Page 18 of 20 HEX Report treated with one or more of the following: (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall,- all;(b) (b)Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines,- ines;(c) (c)Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Staff Comment: See comments above. ✓ Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. ✓ Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Staff Comment: The applicant has not provided glazing in the amount specified along the eastern fagade. However, the applicant has provided extending parapets, clerestories, canopies, ornamental lighting, pedestrian furniture and a large planter box with an iconic tree in order to break up the monotony of the large fagade and provide human scale elements_ Based on the limitations of altering the existing structure in addition to the many architectural features and pedestrian amenities provided staff has found that the applicant has achieved visual interest along the eastern fagade for the distant public. However, additional elements could be included in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance, in order to reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza are, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. The applicant is encouraged to include one or more of the following in order to achieve a human scale character: additional glazing, artwork and/or planting beds containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the facade. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: ✓ (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. ✓ (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays_ ✓ (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing_ ✓ (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. ✓ Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles: (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. ✓ Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. ✓ Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment_ Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli ary Report to the Nearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, 5A -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 19 of 20 HEX Report portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations_ Staff Comment: Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Staff Comment: It appears that all sides of the structure are finished using the some color scheme and materials. However, in order to ensure that quality materials are used staff recommends the applicant submit a material and colors board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Staff Comment: See comments above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Staff Comment: See Condition above. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Staff Comment: See comments above. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. N/A Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. N/A Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. N/A Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include: i. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs)_ Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. N/A Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. N/A Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. N/A Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. SLoffCommen : Staff has recommended, as a condition of Approval, the applicant be required to provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is HEX Report City of Renton Department of Com ity & Economic Development Preli nary Report to the Nearing Examiner WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -HH Hearing Date April 27, 2010 Page 20 of 20 !. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the Walmart Expansion, Project File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approval expires two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. HEX Report specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Staff Comment: See comments above Not Compliant Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces_ Staff Comment: See comments above !. RECOMMENDATION. Staff recommends approval of the Walmart Expansion, Project File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non - Significance Mitigated, dated March 22, 2010. 2. The applicant shall be required to record the Short Plat reflecting the property's lot lines as depicted on Exhibit 2 prior to building permit approval. As an alternative the applicant may submit a modification to the approved Site Plan which reflects the surveyed lot lines, at the time of building permit, as long as all development standards of the CA zone can be met. 3. The applicant shall submit screening detail for the refuse and recyclable deposit area prior to building permit approval. Elevations shall include a roof, screening around the perimeter of the wall and have self-closing doors. Chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited. 4. The applicant shall be required to provide a lighting plan that will adequately provide for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties at the time of building permit review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On -Site. 5. The applicant shall submit a landscape maintenance surety device for a period of no less than three years in sufficient amount as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to temporary occupancy permit. The applicant shall submit an irrigation plan to and be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction or building permit approval. The applicant shall submit revised elevations, for the northern facade, which depict alternative methods to mass and treat the proposed facade. Revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The applicant shall provide revised elevations for the eastern facade prior to building permit approval subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager. The revised elevations shall include additional human scale elements in the pedestrian plaza area, beneath the northern canopy that extends to south of the northern entrance. 9. The applicant shall match the color of the roof -mounted mechanical equipment to the color of exposed portions of the roof. 10. The applicant shall submit a materials and color board subject to the approval of the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. EXPIRATION PERIODS: Site Plan Approval expires two (2) years from the date of approval. An extension may be requested pursuant to RMC section 4-7-080.M. HEX Report Amk F3 - 18 T23N R5E W 1/2 rm g C Ca SYJ ]mY ��5im %mop m 4 .. CA rm SITE CA. y m rm - ca rm S w� Ca ca Ca I r rMCA CA co CA L.� a rm �„ CA rm rm co rm W � v 3 rm Friil cO Im rm rm - rm H g R-8 W s+sm sr Nsw tem sl swims, N i N rM c0 IL c0 c° IL ZONING MAP BOOK H3 - 30 T23N PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 •> doc�m�nl k a YaF1Yt repnrnblwn, rq guaraMeedm surveyxmxY. aiM.rt hawa n rte bex inbrmalrm anWek as oithe ble f Ygxn. mf�laaam.�e�e b. cin e,wav ��moaR �rY. 0 200 400 13) Oily nr ` ` Feet 1,4,800 VI - R-8 r+ a v � { R-1 R-8 R-8 EXHIBIT 2 1 3 19 T23N R5E W 112 919 7r1K11K1r_ AAAD rlr)r)! 74W: 92 93' _ 455 ; ~, 1�~ 456 459 f 461: - B n BG �7 26724N R4E 25 T23Q 24N R5E "� °°"� i T2 N R 9 4 5 T24 .R E " 26 N 5 27124N 135E -_ 81 - 26 T24N R5E 456W r 5 I' 4_58 II a 46a� 464 - _C - 'C e T24N R4E 36 T24N R4E 35 I '� � � � - 4N RSE E, 351�4N R5E 3DBtw8 ` 3d7 L -8.0 -801 3Q9 II D3 1TriE 1 -2� R4B 6.T23N R5E - - - )... i i T T23NTi5E 4 T23N R5E .T23N RSE' 2 T23N RSE 31 �-77— r 36 80 8D6Ji I' 1 I i 1 - S -7 ji 7 11 T N R4E 12 T23N.R5E 3-2 rry} 1` 3 R5E -.9 T23N R5E' I 10 T23N R r_'-- -4. f_ N R5E T23N 1 32-- 327 I 370 F: TI ^y .1 _ �3_TrI4 5 -_ 4T23NR4E _T23N1 4E TIIlIf II \ I 8 R 1&T23N R5E' i-' 17 T2 R5E 16 T23N R5E 1 T23N 4E 14.T23N 1; ',,3i5336 33. i 371 815 816 - -E -.7 2 G4 T23 - .IV R —` 24T231� R4E 19 T23N R5E 20, 23N R5E 1 21 T23N R5E 22 T23 R5E 23 T23N 2r 34434 - - 600 601_ 602 820 821 8 T23N R4E25 T23 -- - .GH H H7,_ N R5'98-T23N 5E-- 30 T23 26 T23N R5E -T23NR5E v 25 X64 '' 11 603_6a 5 L - ---= 4 605 825' 826 $; ]ZL I1! I I - 1.6 17 i 3 E 36 T23N R4E 31 T23 R5E 3g -723N RE 33 T23N -- .34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36 6fl� 608 ��' 6a9 i�r I 1 � i 610 .1 632 833 22N R4E 1 T22 4E 6 T22N R5E iJ 5 T22�1 FESE 4 TN•J$E n` 3 T22N RSE 2 T22N R5E 1 T2 MIXED USE CENTERS RESIDENTIAL 0 (RC) Resource Conservation R -i (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac n (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac -s (R-8) Residential 8 du/ac Rm (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes R-io (R-10) Residential10 du/ac R-34 (R-14) Residential14 du/ac LR� (RM -F) Residential Multi -Family eM-T (RM -T) Residential Multi -Family Traditional RM -u (RM -U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center This tlocvmni Is 9'ophlc r on`mlat'- .0 aquvmleeG :y ""T-ly ana ILS best c.cilohe s N :�e tlal. nnov sed o. nformalien Thls mop 's kr drs{ay purh�s-s _niy MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL =� (CV) Center Village 77 tlLj Industrial - Light uc—ra (UC -N1) Urban Center- North 1 �(IM) Industrial - Medium c� (UC -N2) Urban Center- North 2 ]t {IH) Industrial - Heavy CLt (CD) Center Downtown u COMMERCIAL ----- Renton City Limits cos (COR) Commercial/Office/Residential (CA) Commercial Arterial ---- ALijncent City Limits co (CO) Commercial Office KROLL PAGE (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAGE# INDEX SEC7/rGWN1WGE u f "7 In rrr kht CPO hIL A, K: ww 'A L I F!� 0 co 5 1 LU ZI! f "7 In rrr kht CPO r r i I J2 7 F - hIL A, K: 'A L I F!� 0 5 r r i I J2 7 F - Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y A, K: 'A L I F!� 0 5 1 Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y A, K: % L I 5 1 Amat - am 'M mi W % X.� .,AIL,*^YwM_�q %, v -Y L � a 16 co _ T U ! Z . V NS l3AV 2WH _ r r ns'9db �Uh ' d - r C..Il �, n 4_ r d• ir IECa LU �� f tai g Ee ! i • 5V4 _ 11 'Fir bad 1p lu i6e Oil b 1l t � � .3 L'4:J.i r f F 5V4 _ 11 • + Si ��` 3 � 1l t � � .3 L'4:J.i r f F e I _ 1 �Lzs - ols R a3 dw-lolt:brul�rxur��"^�7 au t w d�lA�lalWalw6rnl�a 4'" n x �e —99 g $ �p�� n2� as Y 95 "-_i3 . Y jxx- fig ;Ig a� Ali s' x9an ;L S &, ra Y 9 H a Ab OB IVA Z CK'nCnA" °SEE �E� his ge M it 14WEIV: a R 0 i J CL co A k •��r rr� �+ - nac� arch-c�vv�a! ,. ,� LY1� I �Ka - olot •s[ sre bP16gK7Ne1S�IIwra0L1"'.'�'�`3 +1(z fr ..wy,vu..6�mlwy�mle.�a1t § § & | |� _� /§k k # � § a 4f& _ $ \ OT - H ca H � W Ln TEE n h 1 a cc 4- a T7 Denis Law City a}_ MayorAk V \" Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Usunobun Osaigie Larry D. Craighead 211 N. Record St, Ste 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Subject: Walmart EXpansion Modification Request 743 Rainier Ave 5 File No. LUA10-009, 5A -H, ECF Dear Mr. Osaigie: This letterissent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the City's Refuse and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location. Summary of Request The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with modifications along the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces.- As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing_ driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in order to reduce the refuse deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards. Section 4-4-090.F allows the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable standards for individual cases; provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2): a. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b. Will not be injurious to other property(les) in the vicinity; and Renton City Hal! • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and e. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Background The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area. Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance due to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,060 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x [155,244/1,000 SF]). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code. However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart. Analysis a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. If approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compacter which has been engineered for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives of the refuse and recyclable standards. Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for the Walmart. b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. The applicant contends the proposed refuse deposit area and use of the self contained compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle .the needs for the existing and. proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval.of a modification to permit a 30 cubic. yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. C) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. See discussion under criterion "a)" above. d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be 'provided for refuse deposit areas. The applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is considered to be reasonable. e) Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store. Decision The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved. Aggeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p:m. April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner, -at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, T- 9. 9. 3 771�bo C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director date Planning Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Parties of Record Yellow File 0 to City of ! NOTIC OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A OETERMINATTON OF MCWSICENIRCANCE- MITIGATED (DNS Ml PCFSIEO TO NO'I1FY IN7ERE5fED PERSONS OF M EiW 01ONMENTALACTION PIIOIR-r TIARRF_ WWowtENP.•.- PROIECrIMAF - WAR6WS.EG.SAH1 IOgTNNt TF4 R,RIIM A.emr 5 DLWPnDN: llw r p"B k +e9 11wwK E.�RIr Sm M RO„ew snd EOYYwuwMrl NFPAI AOMw (a tM m of -wo— tr G! -NRW4 W Wrt :e➢ MNr, wK" mnhlm E34�T,91u,�he of -4v •d41--O4dtlavlBALRI w,whre OOtl fm dr6rd•I Onbr. TM ;pPm,HN p,aP�14 SE.BV4 tWr,a 1paNrMtlmO W e -9 • rrRuloe d RAW RR—e r.mk tlwiVd,O [ullr. THE CSLY OF RCNrON EMARONMLMAL RENEW COMM I= (MCI INS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ALT,ON DOES NOT WASID N IRCAHT AMFSE IM PACT ON THE EHVIMN MEM. Aff Nb of 4m eoiaml W deLe� O W Nd b —`ft: w befen SMD P—m APd E4 M0. Appnh I— be %H!I to rr th Wredw r,eh Or ,quem M wW, NWRy E.RW—. MY CF Rema,,, IM SOW G,tlP WPY, Reorm4 WA 96057. App"14 W NO [anter w pv—d by ON NI REP Mmkg4 Cod! 6e om, i IVDA. AddRMnf Witt dw r prd6N d* ppul WO m" he Obdb,ed Fi—i the fftI— OLF URHlt OMIa, WSJ 43114Sie. A PUBLIC HEMIMG WILL BE HELD BY THE RDrrOM HEAMN6 EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEEnM IN THE COUNOLCHAMBERS ON THE TIFI FLOOR OF CHT HALL. 0055 SWIH BRADY WAY. REIEr011, WASHIMiTON. ON AML 17. VW AT 990 AM TO CON510ER THE Sr" PIAN. IF THE FN ONMENTAL OETERMINATMN 5 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PE,FASECOMACT THE QTY OF REHTJN,DEPARTM[NT OF COMMijNn&ECONOMICDEVEIOPMEIfI ATS It 430.7200. DO NOT REMOVE TNIS NOTIff YJRHDUT PROPER AEITHORI2A'fION Pkase I,dude [IFe protect NUMBEII when nRNK for pmper fi4. IdentlflnNon. CERTIFICATION �,A r- `17� s , hereby certify that � copies of the above document were posted in conspicuous places or nearby the described property on Date: Signed:r-1-zt--- STATE OF WASHINGTON j j SS COUNTY OF KING j I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 4e �G 11 'iI'j7�J�'1 signed this instrument and acknowledged it t his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the ins ment. Dated: /Z e Notary Public in and for the State of Washington Notary (Print): /W//� My appointment expires: R 9 I .I Cityal!f ­ol . rf OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ISSUANCE OF A DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS -M) POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ELF, SA -H LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Pian Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City ClerWs Office, (425) 430-6510. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE RENTON HEARING EXAMINER AT HIS REGULAR MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON THE 7TH FLOOR OF CITY HALL, 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON, ON APRIL 27, 2010 AT 9:00 AM TO CONSIDER THE SITE PLAN. IF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION IS APPEALED, THE APPEAL WILL BE HEARD AS PARTOF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AT (425) 430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. Denis Law City O Mayor �J r 4i e Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 Jeff Chambers, P.E. Pacland 1505 Westlake Avenue N #305 Seattle, WA 98109 SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD iSEPAi DETERMINATION Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Mr. Chambers: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project and have issued a threshold Determination of Non -Significance -Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. Please refer to the enclosed ERC Report and Decision, Part -2, Section B for a list of the Mitigation Measures. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5.00 p.m. on April lb, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8- 110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the. Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. A Public Hearing will be held by,the Renton Hearing Examiner in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of City Hall, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington, on April 27, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the Site Plan. The applicant or representative(s) of the applicant is required to be present at the public hearing. A copy of the staff report will be mailed to you prior to the hearing. If the Environmental Determination is appealed, the appeal will be .heard as part of this public hearing. Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way a Renton, Washington 98057 a rentonwa_gov , E Jeff Chambers March 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. if you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Rgview Committee, de Rocal Timmo Ass ciate Planner Enclosure CC., Peter Bonnell - Bonnell Family LLC / owner(s) Denis Law Cit O y Y �} Ma or March 25, 2010 Department of Community and Economic Development Alex Pietsch,Administrator Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on March 22, 2010: DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED PROJECT NAME: Walmart Expansion PROJECT NUMBER: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of .additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. Due to a missed publication deadline the appeal period for the above environmental determination has been extended to meet the required 14 -day time -frame for a public notice to be published on April 2, 2010 in the City's newspaper of record. Therefore, appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 16, 2010. All Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (42 5) 430-6510. Renton City Hall • 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057 a rentonwa.gov 0 0 Please refer to the enclosed Notice of Environmental Determination for complete details. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7219. For the Environmental Review Committee, i Roc a Timmo s As Stant Planner Enclosure cc. King County Wastewater Treatment Division Ramin Pazooki, WSDOT, NW Region Boyd Powers, Department of Natural Resources Larry Fisher, WDFW Karen Walter, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Duwamish Tribal office Melissa Calvert, Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program US Army Corp. of Engineers Gretchen Kaehler, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY Y City of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTZ4L� .r0` DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE -MITIGATED APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: MITIGATION MEASURES LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Jeff Chambers, Pacland Walmart Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Pian Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. 2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010, during project construction. 3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. 4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. 5. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. ERC Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CityoE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C 0 8 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ADVISORY NOTES LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Jeff Chambers, Pacland Walmart Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development Planning Division Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.0.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division. Water: 1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. 2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Surface Water: 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. ERC Advisory Notes Page 1 of 2 Transportation: 0 0 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 daily trips was submitted. 2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required.. 3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. ERC Advisory Notes Page 2 of 2 of DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D City ton r AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .t ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON—SIGNIFICANCE APPLICATION NO(S): APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: — MITIGATED (DNS—M) LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Jeff Chambers, Pacland Walmart Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 743 Rainier Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community & Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. !c� Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on April , 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.8. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430- 6510. -Agri l 2, PUBLICATION DATE: DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2010 SIGNATURES: - -C, Gregg Zimmer n, . ministrator Public Works pa ment Date Terry Higashiyama, Administrator Community Services Department Date Mak Peterso , Interim Administrator Fire & Emer ency Services Date Ale Pietsch, Administrator Department of Community & Date Economic Development 0 0- �� ��� °�'d� 0 3�3 va a� 3'03. [a'o�•Cia a "w.� o �7z?pC�rn v oanti c v. m 8zi o a Q W w ti> c e �o a c o x j� y c•�rri v'pd-6 ° 9 "•m a �� pzd �W" C r o o oR W� tFd�rW[p,7cn v � c �q,Ua= °"3 _' �,�r'Q 'c3 � °' �,4°, �3w �;oV � w.c�i ��.� [x] �.9 m a �,t•.; V �!FW ~C y 0/ d W t.; O U g y 47 O C eJ C 'a V C 61 •' N C 5a C.� l� >_, cy ��' tai 0.�k ■"OpU� c= �� a° r� " ai c C �4 °a•o v o:w �3 'a d.° Re�'x N tlr' so �a � s r- - avo .. WU] ]r > 6.- -E,, >w' W4 �a.� C o 0 oN 3roCj 7 a�Ut ° Q u a C'�w c a �oN y° av ° c �z °- v o eL7� C W UAv) m d� 3 oa�Wrna DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY An City of h; AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA TO: Gregg Zimmerman, Public Works Administrator Terry Higashiyama, Community Services Administrator Mark Peterson, Interim Fire & Emergency Services Administrator Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator FROM: Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager MEETING DATE: Monday, March 22, 2010 TIME: 3:00 p.m. LOCATION: Sixth Floor Conference Room #620 THE FOLLOWING IS A CONSENT AGENDA Walmart Expansion (Timmons) LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Location: 743 Rainier Avenue S. Description: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SFPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D, Access for the proposal would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave 5 and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. cc: D. Law, Mayor J. Covington, Chief Administrative Officer S. Dale Estey, CED Director 11 W. Flora, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal Transportation Director C. Vincent, CED Planning Director N. Watts, Development Services Director L. Warren, City Attorney F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner D. Pargas, Assistant Fire Marshal J. Medzegian, Council 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 0 of .F ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT FRC MEETING DATE: March 22, 2010 Project Name: Walmart Expansion Owner: Peter Bonnell; Bonnell Family, LLC; 10047 Main Street #509; Bellevue, WA 98004 Applicant/Contact: Jeff Chambers; Pacland; 1505 Westlake Ave N, Ste# 305; Seattle, WA 98109 File Number: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Project Manager: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner Project Summary: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with modifications to the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the parking to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposal would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S/SR 167, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. Project Location: 743 Rainier Ave 5 Site Area: 594,553 SF (13.6 ac) STAFF Staff Recommends that the Environmental Review Committee issue a RECOMMENDATION: Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). Project Location Map FRC Report - Walmart Expansion. doc City of Renton Department of Community Economic Development En nmental Review Committee Report WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -N Report of March 22, 2010 Page 2 of 6 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND The applicant, PACLAND, is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review for the future construction of additions to the Renton Walmart retail store. The expansion would increase the existing building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the existing garden center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The additions would be located on the northern and eastern elevations and would create the opportunity to remodel the interior of the existing store. The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square foot building and a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot, along with additional landscaping and improvements to drainage on-site as well as new fagade treatments along the northern elevation. in addition to the Environmental Review, Site Plan Review before the Hearing Examiner has also been requested. The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave S/SR 167 between SW 7th St and S Grady Way. A recently approved Short Plat (LUA09-158) increased the size of the project parcel from 9.9 acres to 13.6 acres. As part of the short plat the applicant is proposing the demolition of the restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales, currently sited on the north portion of the parcel. The property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium industrial (IM) and located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) and Employment Area Valley (EAV) land use designations. The completed project would result in a 150,244 square foot retail building, 745 surface parking stalls and a 4,701 square -foot Garden Center. The proposed project area is predominately paved surfaces with areas of gravel just north of the existing store location. The amount of impervious area would be increased by the proposal from 515,257 square feet to 528,863 square feet. New landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site and within the surface parking lots. Some excavation of existing soil would be necessary for the areas of proposed expansions. The volume of the cut would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards and 9,500 cubic yards would be brought in for fill to be balanced onsite. Access would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, 5 Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. The proposed building would result in a lot coverage of 25.3 percent. The tallest point of the proposed additions would be the top of the parapet on the proposed trespa panel fagade treatment at the center of the eastern facade; which would have a height of 32 feet and 4 inches from existing grade. The proposed expansion, on the northern facade, would have a height of 21 feet and 4 inches at the tallest point as measured from existing grade which matches the top of the existing parapet. The applicant has requested an administrative modification in order to downsize the refuse and recycle area from the required 2,325 square feet to 30 cubic yards, as they are proposing the use of a self contained compactor which has been engineered for high volume usage. Staff has reviewed the request and issued a decision on the modification along with the SEPA Determination below in order to run the appeal periods concurrently (Exhibit 7). There are 99 trees located onsite of which 15 are proposed for removal. There are no known critical areas on or near the site. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following environmental (SEPA) review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Threshold Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS -M with a 14 -clay Appeal Period. B. Mitigation Measures 1. Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. ERG Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Department of CommunityEconomic Development WALMART EXPANSION Report of March 22, 2010 Review Committee Report LUA30-009, ECF, SA -H Page 3 of 6 2. The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010, during project construction. 3. If pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. 4. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. S. The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. 6. The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. C. Exhibits Exhibit 1 Zoning and Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 2 Site Plan Exhibit 3 Landscape Plan Exhibit 4: North and South Elevations Exhibit 5: East and West Elevations Exhibit 6: Aerial Photo of Project Site Exhibit 7: Refuse and Recycle Modification Approval D. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the fallowing probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts: The site is nearly level with average slopes at approximately 3 percent. The steepest slope on site is located in a landscape area and is approximately 20 percent. The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from loose to very dense. Grading on the project site would be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities would be approximately 9,500 cubic yards of fill and 9,500 cubic yards of haul -out. Following development impervious surface coverage will be approximately 89%. A Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, was submitted with the project application. The recommendations in the report are based on an examination of material that occurred in two phases. The preliminary subsurface evaluation consisted of 12 borings and the final evaluation consisted of 40 borings. All borings ranged in depth from 11 % feet to 54 feet below existing site grades. The report includes design recommendations for site preparation and grading, excavation, foundation support, stab -on -grade floors, drainage and pavements. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. In order to limit impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, that project construction comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. ERC Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Department of Community WALMART EXPANSION i Report of March 22, 2010 Development 5 mmental Review Committee Report LUA10-009, ECF, SA -N Page 4 of 6 Mitigation Measures: Project construction shall comply with the recommendations found in the geotechnical report prepared by Terracon, dated November 30, 2009. Nexus: Grading, Excavation and Mining Regulations RMC 4-4-060; SEPA Environmental Regulations 2. Water a. Storm Water Impacts: The project site is located within the Black River drainage basin of the Duwamish-Green River Drainage watershed. The applicant submitted a "Technical Information Report," prepared by PACLAND. (dated February 5, 2010) as part of the application materials. The applicant is proposing the removal of 29,700 square foot gravel commercial pad located just north of the existing structure. It would be replaced with the expansion of store, surface parking stalls, new landscaped areas and a new bioswale. The existing parking area would not be significantly modified from its existing layout, but would include an overlay and minimal landscape island relocations. According to the Drainage Report, the increase in impervious area would he 14,544 square feet; from 514,319 to 528,863 square feet. Existing stormwater runoff from the site flows towards multiple existing catch basins where it is collected and discharged to the existing stormwater conveyance system. The water flows to an existing biofiltration swale located in the northwestern portion of the site which was designed to treat the existing parking lot areas. The bioswale provides treatment prior to the runoff being discharged to the existing storm system in SW 7th Street. As stated in the Technical Information Report, the proposed project improvements generate a 0.035 cfs increase in the 100 -year peak flow rate. Because the post -developed peak flow is less than 0.5 cfs more than the existing peak flow, the project is exempt from flow control requirements. Any offsite runoff that currently flows onsite will continue to be conveyed via the existing storm system. The proposed conveyance system has been designed to convey runoff for the new impervious surfaces. Additional water quality treatment, in the form of a new bioswale is proposed, as the project would add more than 5,000 square feet of new pollution generating impervious surfaces. The applicant is proposing to comply with the recommendations found in the Technical Information Report prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 for both drainage and erosion control. In order to limit drainage and erosion impacts to the project site and neighboring properties staff recommends the applicant comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall comply with the Technical Information Report, prepared by PACLAND, dated February 5, 2010 during project construction. Nexus: King County Surface Water Design Manual; SEPA Environmental Regulations 3. Environmental Health a. Noise Impacts: The Geotechnical Engineering Study, prepared by Terracon dated November 30, 2009, recommended the use of augercast piles in order to support the structure's foundation. In lieu of augercast pile, the study indicates that the applicant could use small -diameter steel pipe piles in order to support the structure. Noise and vibration impacts can be associated with pipe pile driving. Therefore staff recommends, as a mitigation measure, if pipe piles are used to support the proposed structure the applicant would be required to provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the day and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. Mitigation Measures: If the applicant uses pipe piles in order to support the proposed structure the applicant shall provide a noise and vibration study to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building ERC Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Department of Comm unityEconomic Development WALMART EXPAN51ON Report of March 22, 2010 En Review Committee Report LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Page 5 of 6 permit approval. The City also reserves the right to limit the days and hours of construction when pipe piles are being driven. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations 4. Historic and Cultural Preservation Impacts: It is possible that archaeological artifacts or a historic site could be encountered during project construction. This is due to the site's proximity to former archaeological discoveries. Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall immediately cease and the Washington State of Archaeology and Historic Preservation shall be contacted at (360) 586-3065. A survey shall be submitted that conforms to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. In the event that cultural artifacts are found, work cannot recommence until approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mitigation Measures: Should evidence of a historic site be found during site development, work shall be stopped and the applicant shall submit an archaeological resource survey of the site. This survey shall conform to the requirements and standards of the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation and must be conducted under the on-site supervision of a state -approved archaeologist. Work shall recommence when approval is received from the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Nexus: SEPA Environmental Regulations S. Transportation Impacts: Access for the site would continue to be provided via existing access easements and curb cuts along SW 7th St, Hardie Ave SW, S Grady Way and Rainier Ave S/SR 167. There are three full access points along SW 71h St a full access along Hardie Ave SW; a right in/right out access point along Rainier Ave S/SR 167; and a full access point along SW Grady Way. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated by the Development Services Division and shall be in compliance with ADA standards when construction occurs on the site. No other street improvements would be required for the proposal. It is anticipated that the proposed project would result in impacts to the City's street system and is anticipated to generate 608 additional daily trips. A Transportation Impact Study, prepared by the Transpo Group (dated October 2009), was submitted by the applicant and was approved by the Development Services Division. The traffic study supported the estimate for 608 additional daily trips. In order to mitigate transportation impacts, staff recommends a mitigation measure be placed on the project requiring a Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per net new average daily trip attributed to the project. The fee, at $75 per trip for the 608 new daily trips anticipated, has been estimated -at $45,600.00 (608 trips x 75.00 = $45,600.00). This fee would be payable prior to issuance of the building permit. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Traffic Mitigation Fee in the amount of $75.00 for each new net daily trip prior to issuance of building permits. The fee is estimated to be $45,600.00. Nexus: Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution 3100; Ordinance 4489; SEPA Environmental Regulations 6. Fire & Police Impacts: The Fire Prevention Bureau and the Police Department have indicated they have the ability to provide service to the project provided required improvements are made and a Fire Impact Fee is assessed. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay a Fire Mitigation Fee, prior to issuance of the building permit. The fee, at $0.52 per net square foot of new building area, has been estimated to be $4,472.00. Nexus: Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution 2895; SEPA Environmental Regulations FRC Report - Walmort Expansion City of Renton Deportment of Community Economic Development Environ petal Review Committee Report WALMART EXPANSION LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Report of March 22, 2410 Page 6 of 6 E. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City Department and Division Reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report and/or "Advisory Notes to Applicant." V Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File and may be attached to this report. Environmental Determination Appeal Process: Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM, April 1£, 2010. Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-110.13 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner. Appeals must be filed in writing at the City Clerk's office along with the required fee. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall - 7th Floor, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton WA 98057. ADVISORY NOTES TO APPLICANT The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the administrative land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Planning: 1. RMC section 4-4-030.C.2 limits haul hours between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday unless otherwise approved by the Development Services Division, Water: 1. The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. 2. The existing fire hydrants may need to be fitted with Stortz fittings to bring them up to current City code. Sanitary Sewer: 1. The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Surface Water: 1. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. Transportation: 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 648 daily trips was submitted. 2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site. Miscellaneous: 1. Construction plan indicating haul route and hours, construction hours and a traffic control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to any permit being issued. 2. Separate permits and fees for side sewer, domestic water meter, landscape irrigation meter, and any backflow devices will be required.. 3. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 4. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and an appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. ERC Report - Walmart Exponsion.doc F3 - 18 T23N R5E W 112 LA - IM m7h a __ lM fM CA CA CA CA Im CA CA CA � !M z„� CA fM IM h m CO !M aa fM Z CO fM 1M fryl 1M Lsw,sn s¢ aw ian a� v N 1 N �i fM CO A A Co I CO Co 5 CA CA CA 47 CA [Kii W N IL L ... .............. R-8 H3 - 30 T23N R5E W 112 �� EXHIBIT 1 . 1-1 0 200 4[30 ty�f Feet 19 T23N R5E W 112 � � �. relr : 1:4,800 5319 954 TE- ZONING MAP BOOK 74 92 93'- 455 j f 456 459 461B6 B 1B r k � 14 � I 26 T24N R4E 25 T2 $pT N R5E } T2 N wczw a �9 4 R5 28 T24N R5E 27.124N R5E r 26 T24N R5E 81 .455W i#5 458_ t•��h , 460, 464 C 2 Al - _ - 4 - DC7 35 72414 R4E . , 36 T24N R4E i. A5E E_ J — 35 T24N R5E 3 1 f �� 307 .0 W -N8 309- 0 - -3 01 :ILI ` r 2 _77 Lam_'_ 7 2123NNJ'AEr 4£ , _ S T23N R5E T23N R!it"� 4 T23N R5E: 3.T23N R5E' 2 T23N R5E -i 31,E 3. - 319 369 - 805 3- E4 I' Sr - - 1.T N R4E 12 T23N R4E �_ 7231V R5E I' t 3 R5E 95231 RSEr a: 1D T23N RSE ai T N R5E 32 :' a -- 326 , 327 I i 370 F3'F4 F5 -_ 14T23N,R4E .r �'-T23N.,dE - l.'.1 \ 3 R 18 T23N R5E y7 T23 A5E 16 T23N R5E 1 T23N RBE '14 T23N y� 3 �Y �335� 336 33?= i 371 8151, g 16 T2 IN R4�- �G4_ 3 24T2A R4E 19 T23N R5E' r! ` :20.T23N R5E ,� 21 T23N R5E 22 T23 R5E- 23 T23N 29 44 6D0, 6 02 = 820 821 1J -H,11 2 H� _ H5 ___ ' T23N R4E T23N R5E, 25 T23N R4E _ 29 T29N`A5E= 28 T23N R5E _V T29N A5E 26 T23N R5E 25 0 J_ �351i 603` -604 605 ' 825:826 8 _.. --- _ _16 17 1Z, ]4 36 T23N 114E 31 T23 R5E 32-723N R5E 33 T23N R 34 T23N R5E 35 T23N R5E 36 6fl7 608 610 .632$33 L� 22N R4E- - � 1 T22N 1;4E I 6 T22N R5E-i }� II 5722� Fl5E 4 T22N R5E i 3 T22N R$f p T22N R5E 11 T 21 RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE CENTERS INDUSTRIAL ke (RC) Resource Conservation c ✓ (CV) Center Village i� (IL) Industrial -Light C (R-1) Residential 1 du/ac (UC -N1) Urban Center - North 1 =-m (IM) Industrial - Medium (R-4) Residential 4 du/ac tc r (UC -N2) Urban Center - North 2 7—iL—] {IH) Industrial - Heavy P -s (R -B) Residential 8 du/ac co [CD) Center Downtown _FH H (RMH) Residential Manufactured Homes e - tR-10) Residential 10du/ac COMMERCIAL =.-ka (R-14)Residential 14du/ac --- Penton City Limitu Rn -F (RM -F) Residential Multi -Family coR (COR) COmmerclaVOfflce/Residential -•- Adjacent Cite Limits R (RM -T) Residential Multi -Family traditional c4 (CA) Commercial Arterial Rn -u (RM -U) Residential Multi -Family Urban Center co (CO) Commercial Office KROLL PAGE [Tc N7 (CN) Commercial Neighborhood PAGE#INDEX IM1Is rnaC Is Ix 05-1ay purposes Orly. SECTfIOWN/RANGE i 0I 1211 jig -jig w 1'�.! mult CC lumn ggg� l 111 o a nis g �� ' 8 Noll �� �i �� � 1$ � 5111 r Hill xyl c py pp,ilt IX Of Ili�� "; � � ���I.R16. X 4 RHR III 4 TANII�X��� Vol ' � �e � `� 1x11 'vfit Xx� 61� a� oII It I tl w lip Mill [I OO OO OODpp000 OOOC�a000000©000®® ®®t$m CLVill i°+ It- ----- ; - i K g �s�sas� J CO Q n rn �— el �. � s F> ySee = s Im -,ZL 6 - olm's; 9°1 w R , Wa, Z 0 Z \I XLO Z Q 9Q _ co w 0 U) d STI H x W cn C o (L C) ao W FI 17 p u- 0 O a m LU w z 0 z LV Ln 0 H ". ►r 9s O 7 d W C 0 Lt 0 ca N N yid LM m E -� S2 a 3 © � oQ nennn nn �uul C w ti nnn �uul 9s O 7 d W C 0 Lt 0 ca N N yid LM m E Denis I aw �lTy 01 Mayor � B r r i e I -, .• ■moi ` \ T Department of Communityand Economic Development Alex Pietsch, Administrator March 25, 2010 EXHIBIT 7 Usunobun Osaigie Larry D. Craighead 211 N. Record St, Ste 222 Dallas, TX 75202 Subject: Walmart Expansion Modification Request 743 Rainier Ave 5 File No. LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Dear Mr. Maison: This letter is sent in response to your March 4, 2010 request for modifications from the City's Refuse and Recyclables regulations (RMC 4-4-090). The request was included as part of the land use application for the expansion of the Renton Walmart location. Summa of Reguest The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade. with modifications along the eastern facade. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Silly McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA)'and Medium Industrial.(IM) zoning designations and is also located within. Urban Design District D. Access would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. An administrative modification has been requested in: order to reduce the refuse deposit area from 1,502 square feet to 30 cubic yards. Section 4-4-090.F allows -the Administrator to grant modifications from the refuse and recyclable standards for individual cases, provided the modification meets the following criteria (pursuant to RMC 4-9-250.D.2): a.- Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment; and b. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; and Renton City Hall a 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. 0 rentonwa.gov 0 9 C. Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code; and Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended; and Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. Backeround The applicant, Larry D. Craighead Architects, has requested a modification from the City's Refuse and Recyclable Standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) in order to reduce the size of the required refuse deposit area. Retail developments, require a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10.square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area for refuse deposit areas. The applicant is proposing a 1,080 square foot.area for recyclable deposits and a 30 cubic yard area for refuse deposits. The code applies in this instance due to the proposed expansions of the facility which would require a 751 square foot deposit area for recyclables (751 SF = 5 x 155,244/1,000 SF) and a 1,502 square foot deposit area for refuse (1,502 = 10 x [155,244/1,000 SF)). The proposed recyclable deposit area complies with Renton Municipal Code. However, the proposed refuse deposit area is less than the minimum required. Therefore, a modification request has been made on behalf of Walmart. Analysis a) Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineering judgment. if approved, the size of the refuse deposit area would be a reduction from the 1,502 square feet required to a 30 cubic yard area. The applicant contends that a reduction in the required size of the refuse deposit area is appropriate due to the use of a compacter which has been engineered for high volume usage. The applicant contends the self contained compactor would reduce refuse pickup while eliminating fluid seepage and minimizing odors thus meeting the objectives of the refuse and recyclable standards. Staff concurs the requested modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the refuse and recyclable standards by providing adequate refuse deposit areas in the amount necessary for the Walmart. b) Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity. The applicant contends the proposed. refuse deposit area and use of the self contained compactor would be adequate for the expanded facility. Staff concurs, the proposed refuse and recyclable deposit areas would provide adequate space to handle the needs for the existing and proposed facility. It is not anticipated that the approval.of a modification to permit a 30 cubic yard compact refuse deposit area, as opposed to 1,502 square foot conventional space, would be injurious to other properties in the vicinity. C) Conform to the intent and purpose of the Code. See discussion under criterion "a)" above. d) Can be shown to be justified and required for the use and situation intended. The refuse and recyclable standards (RMC 4-4-090.E) require a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area be provided for refuse deposit areas. The applicant contends and staff concurs; that based upon the use of a compactor, which has been engineered for high volume usage, it is anticipated the reduction of the required deposit areas is considered to be reasonable. 0 0 e) Will: not create adverse impacts to other property(les) in the vicinity. As stated under criterion "a)" & "b)", the proposed reduction of the refuse deposit area should not create adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity of the retail store. Decision The refuse and recyclable deposit area modification for the Walmart Expansion is hereby approved. AARpeal Process: Appeals of this administrative decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. April 16, 2010. Appeals must be filed in writing, together with the required $75.00 application fee, with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057: Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code. Section 4-8-110.6. Additional information regarding the appeal process. may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425) 430-6510. If you have questions regarding this decision feel free to contact Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner,.at (425) 430-7219. Sincerely, c-� C.E. "Chip" Vincent, Director Date. Planning Division cc: Jennifer Henning, Planning Manager Parties of Record Yellow File City of on Department of Community & Economic 6opment ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:AM!, 0 U_ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: F Y 2 ,.2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER e Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN R yren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue 5 PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales_ The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Noturol Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htfGlare Recreation utilities Trans ortotion Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with part' far attention to those areas in which ave expertise and hove identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information ire e to properly assess this pro Signature of Director or Authorized Re Date 04/08/2010 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter in support of the proposed expansion of Wal-Mart in Renton. I am very honored to have been the store manager at this store for the last 7 years. In that time I have seen a vast transformation in our community and our store. i have worked at stores in 5 different states for Wal-Mart, and have never encountered a group of associates as dedicated to the success of this store as the ones I have here. We have strived, specifically in the last few years, to be active members of the community. We have supported over 20 different community organizations in the last year with merchandise or monetary donations. I am active in the Chamber of Conunerce, a board member of the First Tee of Greater Seattle, and a member of the Renton 21 Club. I attend many community events throughout the year, and we are sponsors of Renton River Days, Business in Excellence Awards, and the Chamber Holiday Auction as well. I would ask that serious consideration is given to our proposed expansion. It is the right time for this community to receive a brand new, updated one stop shopping experience. Our mission at Wal-Mart is to "Save People Money, So They Can Live Better", and this expansion would do exactly that for our customers by reducing the amount of money they spend on groceries for themselves and their families. I look forward to managing the new Wal-Mart Supercenter, adding approximately 80 new jobs, and being an even more active participant in the community in the future. Sincerely, J J emy Smith Manager Wal-Mart 42516 Renton, WA (425)227-0407 iksmith_s02516.Us(ii.wal-martxom City of Renton Plashing Division In� - �� 1 10 I am writing this letter to support our store expansion, this will benefit the community with more job opportunities so we can help our customers " Save Money So They Can Live Setter " I have been with this company for 9 years, so this would be a great success for this community of Renton. City of Renton Pia nning Division To whom it may concern, 4/09/2010 Hi, my name is Sharon Ajibade and I'm the Assistant Manager here at the Renton Walmart. I truly want to support our store expansion to a Supercenter to help provide more job opportunity for this community. Making this store in to a Supercenter will positively impact our mission on saving our customer money and help them live better. I shopped here at this store because of the great low prices that Walmart is committed to. As a customer, this will help me get all my groceries all in one stop and not have to drive down to the Federal Way Supercenter to buy my produces for my family and 1. 1 love this store because I know that this store does a lot of donation to the community and this community deserve to see the future Supercenter in Renton. Thank you for your consideration and time to read this letter. Sincerely, Assistant Manager Sharon Ajibade 743 Rainier Ave S. Renton, Wa. 98057 City of Renton PlaIininq Division ED To whom it may concern, 4/08/2010 Hi, my name is Huy Tran and I'm the Assistant Manager here at the Renton Walmart. I truly want to support our store expansion to a Supercenter to help provide more job opportunity for this community. Making this store in to a Supercenter will positively impact our mission on saving our customer money and help them live better. I shopped here at this store because of the great low prices that Walmart is committed to. As a customer, this will help me get all my groceries all in one stop and not have to drive down to the Federal Way Supercenter to buy my produces for my family and I. 1 love this store because I know that this store does a lot of donation to the community and this community deserve to see the future Supercenter in Renton. Thank you for your consideration and time to read this letter. Sincerely, r' Assistant Manager Huy Tran 743 Rainier Ave S. Renton, Wa 98057 City of Renton Planning Division HIECEM:J Xdc�7 � U-75-h,;If- Z -A To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to support our store expansion. I am very happy to be part of this store and work for Wal-Mart. I truly believe this will be a positive step for our community. Customers and employees as a worker point of view this will be great place to shop and to work. Anapogi Toleafoa I.C.S Unloader City of Renton Olarining Division 1 HEC(_ E[E 'SIE® Jeremy Smith - jksmith.02516 From: Sophorn Chan - schan.s02516 Sent: Thu 4/8/2010 4:59 PM To: Jeremy Smith - jksmith.s02516 Cc: Subject: support letter Attachments: My name is Sophorn Chan. I am an associate here at Renton Wal-Mart and I support the expansion of our store- I started out as a cashier to help pay for school and dial not intend to stay long but I am going on my tenth year as a Wal-Mart associate and is very proud to be one. In my 9 plus years I've been experimenting a multitude of career opportunities and yet have not been in every department in the store. I am currently a Fashion Zone Supervisor and also in charge of community involvement, working with non- profit organizations. The expansion will benefit not only the city of Renton but surrounding communities as well, opening up career opportunities as well as providing community relationships between merchants and the public. This store continues to teach me the value of a family oriented work -place and our new Supercenter will offer those same benefits to other's in our communities. Thanks. Sophorn ... }I( City of Renton P4anning Division C [IVFE To whom it may concern, My name is Tilesa L. Swehla and I've been the department manager of Foods at the Renton Wal- Mart for three years. I am writing you regarding our expansion into a Supercenter. As I'm working everyday I come into contact with a lot of customers that would love if we were able to expand to a full grocery store. Just today I talked to an older couple (the husband was SO and the wife was 79) and they were telling me how much they've enjoyed our transition into an expanded foods. The wife went on to say that they wished that we were a Supercenter because 'it would be wonderful to have the convenience of doing all of the shopping in one location'. I can't even say how many customers I come into contact with that express the exact same sentiments. Also, I personally feel proud to be involved in a store that will not only add 100 jobs to the community but will also positively impact the community financially. Not forgetting to mention how we're pioneers in the sustainability movement! This would be a win/win situation for us and for the City of Renton. Thank you so much for your time! Si erely, l L i esa L. Swehla City of Renton Planning Division 0 0 To whom it may concern, Hello, my name is Traffaney and I'm the department manager of Electronics. I am writing because I feel it's important that everyone knows how not only how much the community wants a Supercenter but how much associates do too. I think that it would be a great idea to expand into a Supercenter not only because it would add so many jobs but also because of how much money it would pour into the economy of our community. I'm not only an employee of Walmart (for the past 11 years) - I'm also a customer at Walmart and a resident in Renton. I can see how positively it would impact our community and how convenient it would be for people to be able to shop here in Renton verses having to go to Kent or Federal Way. Thank you for your consideration! Sincerely, Traffaney Black City of Renton Planning Division WECE V rc�[D) 0 0 April S, 2010 Dear City Hall, My name is Brandi and I work as Automotive Department Manager at Renton Walmart 42516. Expanding the store to a super center would truly make this a one stop shopping experience for a lot of customers as well as associates. I am also in support of creating more jobs for the community. Sincerely, "-�' '� Brandi Hansen Automotive Department Manager Qty of Renton Planning Division ?.: :s . 0 0 April 8th, 2010 To whom it may concern: I am writing in regards to the expansion of 'Walmart store #2516 into a Su expansion because it offers more jobs for the community as well as creat that already work for the company. It also gives the community, including needs within the budget they set. I hope you take these advantages into consideration when you make you Tha you, 4 Sierra Schavrien ICS Associate Walmart # 2516 City of Renton Planning Division inOWCEWEDD 0 kl�loh [Vql—Ak4 JS16 eq(- ct -k/ [� I I f X17 G SJp�rCei�9Pr ; .-T ah) �Vt �ee�-ihq (VAOkvr�' lom� qw �V go* - City of Renton Planning Division April 8, 2010 To Whom It May Concern, I would like that the Renton Wal-Mart will become a Super Center. It will be good to the people in this community because it will help us save money. It will also create jobs which will help many families. Thank you, Tomasita Quinsay City of Renton Piarnning Divisiall ' � r E 9'W 0 0 To whom it may concern: I am writing this letter to support our store expansion. I am very proud to be part of this store and have worked for Wal-Mart for I I years. I truly believe by expanding our store will create more jobs opportunity for the community. My goal as an associate is to make sure that we are helping customers to save money so they can live better. By expanding our store will help them tremendously, by having low prices on our groceries. There is a lot of good benefits that will come along with our stores expansion. Hopefully Renton city council will take our proposal into consideration. Thank , Tauasi Paaga H.R City of Renton Parming Divis#on IR E A� 'c h) Z) City of Renton 0 0 I would like to see the Renton Wal-Mart become a super center for several reasons. There will be more jobs added to our community. We will be able to buy groceries here. There will be more hours available for the employees that already work here. There will be advancement opportunities for the employees that work in this facility. City of Renton Planning Division IRC�C E.�VE, I~n) Dear people of Renton, Soon we are going to have a Wal-Mart Supercenter. This will be beneficial to the people in our community, it can create jobs for more people and it will make Wal-Mart a bigger store. With the Supercenter, we can have a bigger store and more products to sell. If we could have a Supercenter, our customers can buy more for cheap, create jobs for more people, and keep our community happy. Francis Canapi City of Rentor Planning Division 0 To Hearing Committee, I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton. I have been working for Wal -mart for 1 Iyrs now_ I have worked in a Super Center and a Div 1 Store. I like the fact that working for your Super Center you can get your whole meal after you get off work. Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live better since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart instead of gas going some place else. It would also create more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also be able to donate more to our community. Thank you, Cheryl Harrelson ZMS City of Renton Planning Division l� C NED • LI f I—] cil COAC((11 tj r ('Ib lyles:5413e- 40 irtcopp� CoGcdTCr Much 0 r c,a .4-c Federal 4)ax 0cafly cn3QX n&4 46 how +c a e �?a Yoe( l �I City of Renton Planning Division To whom it may concern, 1 wanted to take the time to write a letter to the hearing committee to show how much we as associates want to have our store expand to a Supercenter. Everyday 1 have at least 30 people ask me if we have produce, meat and/or bakery so 1 think it's safe to say that it's also something the community has been waiting for for a long time. We (as associates and a neighborhood) would like the opportunity to shop locally — so we can save money and live better. Sincerely, Josh Smith Dept. Manager of Pets/Chemicals/Paper Goods City of Renton Planning Divisior, 0 0 To Hearing Committee, I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton. I have been working for Wal -mart for I Oyrs now. I like the fact that working for a Super Center you can get everything in one place and save time. Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live better since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart. It would also create more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also be able to donate more to our community. Thank Lev Department manager City of Renton punning Division 0 To Hearing Committee, I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Renton. I have been working for Wal -mart for 9yrs now. I like the fact that working for a Super Center you can get everything in one place and save time. Having a Super Center in Renton Wal -mart we will also help the customer save money and live better since they can do the one shop shopping and spend their money here in our Wal -mart. it would also create more jobs for our associates and our community. We will also be able to donate more to our community. i i "dank you, Jo ie Merveus Depattment manager City of Denten Planning Division 19EEa WPIECQ) 0 0 To Hearing Committee, I am writing this letter to voice my opinion about a Super Center in the city of Menton. I know this city and Community will benefit by having a great place to shop and save money. This Super Center will create many j obs also. It will bring many people in the city. I am very excited about having this Facility. Thanks Dept. Manager Abram Sparrow 12 Years of dedicated service to the customers that shop in Renton Wal-Mart. City of Renton Planning Divis4on I ft�C [I�J\yl ) To whom it may concern. I am writing this letter to support our store expansion. I am very happy to be part of this store and work for Wal-Mart. I truly believe this will be a positive step for our community. Customers and employees as a worker point of view this will be great place to shop and to work. Valerie Reyes I.C.S lead supervisor 2nd shift City of Renton Planning Division [RI iL�C E I] \W FF [D3 CRY of Renton Planning Division IRECER/E[l)) To whom it may concern, My name is Irish Joy E. Layador and I have been working for Walmart for 5 years. I believe that the expansion for our store is a very important thing for the community. I fully support and encourage our store to be a Supercenter. It will open more opportunities for our community, associates and customers. Having the expansion will create an environment where everyone can be successful and it will truly show that we listen to our customers and employees on things that matters most to them and what they care about. We can show them that they are valuable and we can fulfill our number one motto; Good customer service so we can "Save Money and Live Better". Thank you for your consideration. Entertainm t �ne Merchandise Supervisor Renton, alm #2516 City of Renton Planning Division Cl U) U) LU Q J_ Q LU 11-1 w m Z W Z a CL w J w CL 0 U \. CL U �?S u w LU U U) L LU o Q L1 C 4 y # s v E EP Ln °° E c= CD (n Co Q O C U V C� ¢��oE "D� a� U) •� �� s 0 0 D N S6 CL J . 77� •- r ■ � D w= �Q5,00 L 00 -1-+ CLo Q p (n L C /�� V o , O cL M C C: (<D ' U CLQDC?N +_+ o '3 c � �.x c > D�O- �� 73 4 _e a) D E Q N a O 0 � m c .,� m-a�a O 0-01— . 0 5 c aQ C 7 O .y O- 0 > O CD .� (1) cS3 -O U) U) LU Q J_ Q LU 11-1 w m Z W Z a CL w J w CL 0 U \. CL U �?S u w LU U U) L LU o Q L1 C 4 y # s v 0 c o •Q CU :t-- E Es D O . C 4a O O E L W C: } 0 CL C: CLU O N U 0 T < cL E ai U Lo c .� m C N CO O -Q O M1� p•U— Q N Q O °p CL Ql i Q� 4- CZC O N O } — CL C 0 S O . �>>= }, O Q)n�io0o 0 o�� E o Q) O CL Ow U C (D 3 21 CL CO Z Q� >>^�k c L Q .y 0 CL W 0 -0p L �U i r C U m N U :3 L U A ,a Q) c ca O M E O. N N U H c > E O o Cl CL) a>i 0 UJ [� -0 m 0 W U w � Cr 3 Q _ ❑ w Q J_ Q , i LU co z w z 0O . CL w r w .J r w ❑ o CL w � Cl) LLJ 3 Q _ e . w z U) U) LLI —J cr LLJ COz LLI Z 0 CL LLI —i LIJ w 0 0 a_ Fj Q) w w U) U) U) w Q I Ile NZI QJ 0 -r- co F 0) 4L IS .2 0 E C: Q) O :t� CL u C: 0 C, > (D C-- (a < 0--- v_"2 U) cn ca m o CL 0 0 >, E co < 0 0 V- W C o CL 0 Q I r cu 0 0 0 E �7 CL,C—>% C;) 4�: C L (D o * L >,T > T< a) (3) O -c 0 7:3 E cO E -0 , c 0 0 0 0 a) -11 Q-- cc) c L 3) (1) 0 m C L 10 x > 2 0 CL c 0 0) 4� 0 _0 -0 C) LE 0 E LCL Q) :3 0 > E r --C, M 0 CL Q) > 0 D =f (1) m U) m-0 m U) U) LLI —J cr LLJ COz LLI Z 0 CL LLI —i LIJ w 0 0 a_ Fj Q) w w U) U) U) w Q I Ile NZI QJ v_"2 I r L 0 U) w D' I LU co LU Z 0 T, CL w I LU 0 CL 0 E = 6- V) w 0 0 C: -.E Fj o ;�U) cLO ur, LU uj CL U) U) 0 C: C VI QO (1) c 0 0 w L- , CL '4- ai i o 4,- CL r- (n O.S -F D > a (1) (1) 0-0 0 Cl) _0 C: 0 cc E c 0 0 0 0Q E -0 00 a) Z) c W C 0� C x W > C: 0 > m " 0 0 0- 0 _0 0 Q) ;o cis _0 -C -0 U = A- c 0 Co 0 0 cu 4-7 E C: U) Q W > E 0 0- o CL- CL > 0 0 :3 :tf (D U) m -0 U) w D' I LU co LU Z 0 T, CL w I LU LU 0 w 0 0 Fj ur, LU uj I -- U) U) U) w 0 <C) LU 0 _ 0 w r. L _ D �- c/i o a a� CL co m E n � iW f O C E� E 0 0 0 cr o O re O E C= G7W++ -C Q U O L C c C- ca O N L N < SL E Q3 (n Cry � 00 .� �QQ)oo �a '0o O -- CL D w- m c, c> 0E�, — CL t O O a7 O -O O 0- yQ) y/�.-•+� /off, LL ^ E V W O 0 O O-� Q)U m CL N > O .Q C 0 C OU C O (D � -0 fG C Q Q) N .0 U) m -O 0 Cf) CO W ❑ Q W J D I E 4; r, r- a -'d I + r rte, r I 4; r, r- a -'d I r. L r 0 C i CL Cl) o E ui ca o C O. 2 Ec— � E cn O c OE o ° ; ° E a) c 0 a r Q U O W 05as U a)L( �. Qom--oE L = N — •a) u) 71 � c o ° c� E a :01 U U co Q N 0 O � OU 4 p us +- d a ,Co � C U U 40- 0 E Q) E N Qy N N X O cCUC 5 oc E u:), E f O Qa� " (D _ N O C x' 4- > Og L) . U L6 UJ W O) c O E LCL +• m N cn N �a) Q> o y O o c co17A w ❑ w U, m z w z O a w w LU O C) EL N U LU w U) U) LU x ❑ a w Q z 0 �s c C O Q c� rA O O = Q . c L�� CD -0O E C=amuC+. Q) C? C 4) OCl !- C Q O N 2 w � A ca Q0-.-oE c C: N boQ) c a -0. r Q U v= mQa)oo °o CL O Z3C d E w � O QzmN `+L+ O C 0 a� (D _0 -2C (D_C Q) O E O Q) Q 4- CL CL Q) d !, QC G37 n X > > C 0 O N ' d C g- �m>Eo: �Q) w-- 0-�- o N 7 O U) Co -0 0 Cl) w ❑ Q J_ Q LU W m Z W z O T- CL LU J w W 0 U d N H U W W U) U) U) W ❑ Q W Q Z Flit 9 rl It;� i J 1 i� �I C r. _ a.� Q LM Al rrr. CL U) a E 0 d � Y C6 Q__= E t ` A w S 0 2 7- C E' � O °CD3 o•L�o� c m c Y (3) D "N Q v O Q7 U 0 � A > Q) 1= Q Z) ffiM0(D EoQ� ti a •� �Q oo CL p cn — N ro L) o oEvL- C E_ Q) Q} La 0 a)0 To o c.-, Q 2- (D N p 75 x ; 0 U) Ln -- E o Q� 0 X- z 0 zLU CL 0 5 'A < T- a. LU MO S� LU A 0 CL 5, E 0 0 oc c 0 0 0 a o 'n L = 'R (3) CCU: , m t L) —0 u 0 W CIL) CL CO, - > U) -(D O -0.0 CCc cc Lo E '-UY 2,2 ' o- -E LLJ 0 CL 7@ 5, >0 0 t L) :5 /}'oat 2 �E (r) 0 cc m E CL OO (D(D = T > E 0 0--0 (D > 0 ±-- (D ilk m -0 U) Ln -- E Q� z zLU Cv 0 T- a. LU LU cr— W CIL) F— LLJ LL) CO Cl) ui cl� rr� r o O ■� VI :� r. ^� CL V rrrrrl E n rrrrr E 05 c S O Q O ._ E 2 L S O r O ._ t� Q1 .— c: C C LEy 0) QO E C 0 O +' oc Q O C11 U) D (6 Q N O U i3 � 0:3 � Q N O L cm _ � � Q_ 0 y N r - Q in—+41 ^U^,, CJ 0 0 Q � W �H L Y! ECL Al L O L a O 0 E O N O .Q +o CL U O :3 x > > (D Q 0- Q — C U m to ) _ L L Q aS m N > E O (D} a>- CU QCL + m ,Q [� c� -0 ca 0 0 C) U) w ❑ Q ¢ J Q w a W z W z O a. w J w F W ❑ /O L) LL N } F_ U 1-- w LU lyF U) U) U) w w z ` _ 6! J r .,v CI vj Ile J ril N. CI vj CL a 0 Ma ,03 a r� W L CL U) r. cc 0 C C) 0 Q LG Ems#= E 'E3 '2' c•L�4- Qs C�, 0 N Q C N 0 :., C: U O w 5 Q3 U m`LnE� Qom•-oE �(� S c,o C U1 CO O --o. (4 v O' Q (D 0 O 01 Cc ro �%i�v 0 Q �gc� U U O 0 E Q) `� Q) �U CL �+ 0 D 0 o o�� E 0 Q) O 0 CL W a) 3 ,E X a�co oo C 'U U) Qi ai �Eo'� Z- 0- L0 +r rrOn� Q) > O Vi c c U) U) w Q.` a w W m z w z 0 T- a_ LU J W H ^-:7 '{ + �. W 7 � a CL a 0 Ma ,03 a r� W L CL U) r. cc 0 C C) 0 Q LG Ems#= E 'E3 '2' c•L�4- Qs C�, 0 N Q C N 0 :., C: U O w 5 Q3 U m`LnE� Qom•-oE �(� S c,o C U1 CO O --o. (4 v O' Q (D 0 O 01 Cc ro �%i�v 0 Q �gc� U U O 0 E Q) `� Q) �U CL �+ 0 D 0 o o�� E 0 Q) O 0 CL W a) 3 ,E X a�co oo C 'U U) Qi ai �Eo'� Z- 0- L0 +r rrOn� Q) > O Vi c c U) U) w Q.` a w W m z w z 0 T- a_ LU J W H Fr"• v I`1 ^-:7 '{ + �. 7 la r r r. LLJ r w V' Fr"• v I`1 ^-:7 '{ + �. 7 la r r r. LLJ w V' w �✓ J1 Fr"• v I`1 0 0 E Q, c cn c o to CL 0' E w ❑ 'A 0 6 c c i j �� � _ W l0 .� C: 'n 43 ° E C = C;) 0 �+ .- CC N w f■E c N o }, 411 c ca- U 0 m /� VN N � U) z-]� D Z > O � w Z j U) D 7; d Lu ro � .0 CL � Qv u¢ L �Qo ai Lno ♦-+ a a m c o o � ,� m � ��� Q� A� W ro w ❑ �.. v aEmo V/ Q�� N 7 cn 0 N N 0-0LU a�-c(roro Wc O 00 0 N O %— E U U] 1 + U)�--Q C � CL C: .a Q O p 7 - s -0 U s ro fl as a °7 } c > E 0 s 0 ro a +� aD E FU r Cl) m -0 m LU Q E 'A j/ WW j/ WW c _o � Q � COL cts c6= 5 Lo � O 0 Q (� 2) C Q cn O C � Q E L4 w C N }_. C c ca - N Qva. C o E v u) :3 cn 'a O ca o v C") 0.— v m< a) >N � o = 0 CL a v a—� Q C v 4- oEay.0 E L;-- ;-- 75 cn � E N Q0)N C . v_ N XN O C -0 O Q) N v O Q CL C'2 X j til > N C 0 � C —_ ZE L. v v N �� rrL] 7 O VJ m _0 m w w in z LU z O 2 d LU J LU F— 71 Jlj 4; r -�I .J I k ld LLJ —ty'- �1 0 � I r� .I V V ' •Y �f CL r O .L U W ■� www■ CL V♦ Q E m nV/ W c _o � Q � COL cts c6= 5 Lo � O 0 Q (� 2) C Q cn O C � Q E L4 w C N }_. C c ca - N Qva. C o E v u) :3 cn 'a O ca o v C") 0.— v m< a) >N � o = 0 CL a v a—� Q C v 4- oEay.0 E L;-- ;-- 75 cn � E N Q0)N C . v_ N XN O C -0 O Q) N v O Q CL C'2 X j til > N C 0 � C —_ ZE L. v v N �� rrL] 7 O VJ m _0 m w w in z LU z O 2 d LU J LU F— 71 Jlj 4; r -�I .J I k ld LLJ —ty'- �1 0 � I r� .I V V ' •Y 4-1 r C� � I r� V 0 cn w ❑ w cr- w Z LU z O T- CL w J w LU D 0 U CL N U w w U) U) CO w 0-1a rr.r l C� Py� r� .'J Ci I 4� c O In �p L I - MO 1 S_ cmc... m' c A� O_'5 C V/ Cn Q-�Oy 2V)� �] T w�! 0 c L ,V Q- o E }+� m c M 0 '_ cO O C �' N p 0.i ti CL m --0. U •U O O O oo Q o -E ° m CL C:L+�+ d — a)o-0o -C r_ E o�� E 0 � o o CL Q) E���3 O O_ O x j > -0 /7 4- O L -W '5 ( c) Q m a � ) C -L) m N L -0 � ,^ (i 3: C L m G Q ID +-1 C L (Z O iJ ++ U) m -0 m cn w ❑ w cr- w Z LU z O T- CL w J w LU D 0 U CL N U w w U) U) CO w 0-1a rr.r l C� Py� r� .'J Ci I 4� �rm -- (D a 0 C _ o •- t/i (D 0 i AR C V♦ E W rn � C 0 Q w 0 c4 to 0 cr} Q 0 E o °'��'3 C: 0 0��.0� C— ++ 0 ' .C: m L� N C Q '�E::; C CL C) N 5 0 U aDLU)-�. <CL. -off L 0 4-- = Cn .� C °Cin c�uQC00 ai0'00 0- C � 0� Eo C M C w L Q °+,�� 3 X C -0 O "C3 cn c C I, pJ "c Q) eSf oE o a ° ° �° �a 0 4-(Dc-'0� C " Q1 O "01— '- 0 L Um t �!E _0 Z EIn Q N U 0� w Q U) U) LU d Q J_ Q w w m z w z 0 2 d w J w U) w Q ti off r �} � A. S .'�N hr Q "r. "I t eS 0 C o iZ .-0 Q � � �= E `s 0= O (t3 9) C o c 3 �•r-� d) o 0 E = o� cc «. � N C= Q) c a v O E m m o C V) CO f6 41 Q -0 O'U.0 roQ ao ai°,0o L N L U W m [d U U 4- 0 O E Q} (C D CL O N N 0-0 O m ny m y ❑ - 0 a) a elful [SS O Q � W x > > .O 4D m C: Q 0 �° 01- -p Cll C cC O -,F--m E a a`) 0 � 3 � >Eos (DZ-- Q� 0 O ++ Q� > o U)u - w CO Z w z 0 CL w w I --- w 0 U w_ N } U w LU Cl) U) U) LU DL Q w Q z M ray 0 iaA Ca r-� f i •,�.!` ice--. 4V t� W S �4 o �T. , Lna O � � C t`CL o . 1 i r L t� w-���3 C: L 4- a) U E c N L N }I co C 0-U O Q) C w 0 Lo L Q Q) C ` t4 N a � D 'O C � .s - r- N Q m ca��. D U U C Q Q) O 0 L O U) — a p E � O M C ♦�+ Q) Q) C) E L t a•�� 3 a) L o a) 0-0 _O ,h 'VI O Q}I. Q 1� Q of U 3 ,_ � O CL Z- N p o ' �w 0- L �J U m70V -c-- L ca C Q Q) (D N C 7 E L Co O ++ Q N 0 - a Lu 00 ❑ z LL) Z O EL uLI J w R - ti V J W S k. L I , T t`CL o . 1 i r w r CL co �J ( m w-���3 C: L 4- a) U E c N L N }I co C 0-U O Q) C w 0 Lo L Q Q) C ` t4 N a � D 'O C � .s - r- N Q m ca��. D U U C Q Q) O 0 L O U) — a p E � O M C ♦�+ Q) Q) C) E L t a•�� 3 a) L o a) 0-0 _O ,h 'VI O Q}I. Q 1� Q of U 3 ,_ � O CL Z- N p o ' �w 0- L �J U m70V -c-- L ca C Q Q) (D N C 7 E L Co O ++ Q N 0 - a Lu 00 ❑ z LL) Z O EL uLI J w R - ti V J �i S k. L I , T 1 i r r �i S , z. V S 3 Y� 0 O 0 co cn W ❑ Q J_ Q LU W�i r� 0 v\ Vj . s� 0 C o o E 0) co ° m \ co O i 'C C:C-CC] a E C= U) r-+ IS N IS C (D ��r C Q v = O U a)0a ¢r�n�oE t6 r LD V! z; ca z cz 0 a N ra CL L Co ¢ N Q ��a'0o L a/ W O E N w `M � L CL Q�N p� ,0 0 °'°-0 O �. ) ocR 0 E tf O � D O `O O_a` U CE (Z 3 v)L1)3) C Q 0 c-5oa C — C) C 'U (6 L 0 0 7 (6 C Q a) !n ( O N C 7 E O �.+ Q >' O- N j C (I? m -0 m O 0 co cn W ❑ Q J_ Q LU W�i r� 0 v\ Vj . s� = o CL r 0 ■i � L �L X11 CL V♦ E 0 0 1\` r R.. c o w CL C� E o t`v CE�� �° ¢ J_ � 0 C � tom+ LW CD = 3 j o z p�. O aT • — c � U � �'' N LU In ) CO O N U Z CD C L R; O E w O [� T VJ = N -0T- Cis LRT ui O C 0—i O .2 +. [��= O•- RT Q (D O Q ai ' 0 0 G (1) L w 07 d.1CL N v O O 0-0 p 4� O m 0 ( 3 -0 G CL U N — c c 3 U) w t co . a [If ' E -2 Q CL CD Z5 -0 ,V •� (D WL W � � V •v+ c U RT O L (D L a� CL °' m-' �-0 m o W 1\` r R.. t`v 1\` r R.. E 9 c U, 0 (10 CL w cr 0 0 0 KA cm cn N CII CL L) > <CL w z " D E 0 a_ r_ o LU C: tn LU CL o -0(D � 0 5, E co < (D 0 0 0 0 =3 L) 4� 0 Q } >, Q r- 0 0 (n a) CL 0 co C) L) w 0 0 E 0 0 (D a_ CL OE N z -�5 .26 > 5R c c Cl) (1) (L) 0-0 0 _0 r- .— Y) C: mLU 0) r Q)t6Lli o E EE c: 0 0 0 �s 0- co 0- U co -0 2!, > > c p as -io 0 73 4� 0 -0 W ca _0 -0 co LCL CD W 0) U) L) W 0 0- w > 0 =5 U) ui Z 9 0 k C, OF 09 I, L EV KA 0 k C, OF 09 I, L EV 0 r4 O U) CL CL E❑ ui -Fo L. 0 -r- 0 5 0 (D cr < CM LU a) 0-0= 0 E 10— N LU CL C) 0 o CL 5 U v) C7 >ca w < CL Z3 U) U) Z) C: LU 0 —1 LU 0 CO M 0 m < S0 (L) 0 2) 0 0 0 C) ch Q L- CL 4- t Z) c m M LU 0 U) L) M C/) Q- `'= N 0 7T) > W Q) o -O 0 70 1-: Z .— V) C M M ui a) C Q) w 0 o o a.[ If ca)) Q- a) n-0 C: C; U) w r— --@ 2!, CL 0 0 cn .— 0 > 75 x 0 > r 0 6 - 0 CL 41 o a) 70 a) O CL M > E 0 L) > 0 Q) -0 cq LU 2E 0 r4 C7 9 CD c .0 CL E E z U) 0 F- 0 E 0 Q 0 4 -O E cm 14 Q.— CLL) 0 (D > CL o E m 0 (D C') 0 < 0 0 C c 0 U) 4- 0 E C: 75 > -9 .2 (D -C: Q) ca Ln E 0 a) C: CA C: 0 2!, -2 5> > Z- C 0 0 0) 0 -0 a) (D -0-1-- -CC—) C) !E -0 >b -B. (D m H -r- E a. c-- > E 0 C) 5 7 :3 8- > 0 VJ m -0 m CD 0 ll� LU (n D z LU z 0 m CL w -j LU <3 0 ri J- 3; O C� CL Y (� 03 O �. R3 o -r- °t L E '� C o L o m E � = � Lo Q) O C 41 Q U p cf) N U cJa � A Q N C L Q'� p U) u3 �o(D C U .2 Q(D4o a' a o Q O co do) O +- — Q A C a)(DU • CY) L i o Q) Q) 0-0 O O n o c ° ° p U !, CL q—°, Yom- Q� c�OCLw CD —_ Q) Q) W : N E O N +� CL >" C) Co 0 75 co 0 W x 0 J_ W LL1 co Z LU Z a 2 rL LLI J LU LLI 0 0 C) a N t C) LW LL1 U) w Q I 0 C' IN i� r LU '1 Z i g _ .^i O C� CL Y (� 03 O �. R3 o -r- °t L E '� C o L o m E � = � Lo Q) O C 41 Q U p cf) N U cJa � A Q N C L Q'� p U) u3 �o(D C U .2 Q(D4o a' a o Q O co do) O +- — Q A C a)(DU • CY) L i o Q) Q) 0-0 O O n o c ° ° p U !, CL q—°, Yom- Q� c�OCLw CD —_ Q) Q) W : N E O N +� CL >" C) Co 0 75 co 0 W x 0 J_ W LL1 co Z LU Z a 2 rL LLI J LU LLI 0 0 C) a N t C) LW LL1 U) w Q I 0 C' IN i� r LU '1 Z .^i }I C D o }+ Qi W i CL co i E m 0 m C c o m a Ems— E O � � o��am S Q= Q or - C: Q CL— p E NW=, I u'D c m m o C) , � 71 U O O - w czQ(Doo a� o oa) c n '~ a� a E 0 o G C E c7 Q) w 3 r+ O N U o Q) + f6 � rte- O d� U � C CA E c w$++ a W mac) a� U 0-y (n O 0 CD m C. } O '� Q 0 (6 O ++ 0- N 0 U) (4 'O co f a I r V, U, LL1 Z o 1 a LU r LLJ LU w� ol� r U) y 4 U) 0 v 7�2 L 0 'k 0) a U) CL ui m o _r 10 C co 0 -q- op - I,- ":� E CD O.N Lmu 0-0 0 (1) 73 (D q) 2 D z > wz LU < o--- o 0 m M 0 W mLU -j 2= 0 w CL co -0 0 0 Lr < 5, E 0 C (n C r - w o o 4.j CL (DO 30 0 0 '45 0 E (05 (u a) 14 ■ CL E COL. -aa) 0) -Cc: .0 0 C LLI M Q) o u) E Ir, t 0 4 E70 C: Z w cm: -C 1? C.U. 0 2C x > ❑ > .0 (1) C 0 - 0 0CL — —0 >b Q) � C: m mc E CL V) a) > L) L- CD 7 E (D > 0 =0- , Q) -0 w Z 1. v 7�2 L 0 'k 0 LLI VI CL E L. U) n 0 F- 0 *Cf co . co C > cd T u) Lo CZ U) 0 CL 3: Z03 0 ��- < 0 o (1) t>F (D 2) Fo- cc Q) M L) CL -O >, (1) (n = -�- = Z) c U'o 0 E o ;E 46 CL C: z- cn 0) Z U) (D cn -0 U) . 2-0 0 of C Q) > > CCL 0 0 L — =5L CL a) W � (D C > E Q) cn 2 o > 0 N m m -0 m LLI rI 2:31 L. rI 2:31 E 0 0 Of LU CCLL E w ZT c c N 0.— 7= 7� Q_ rL 0 0 Ui 2 in z >I < a ro 0 CL a or) 0 0 iF E 0 0 CY) C: C L_ 0 0 C) .6� C 0 a 0Q �. O� C:L ,__ m 0 0 E CLE' >. C M Lo $� (D Q1 .21z V) E CL fl 0) '�5 *6 Z - > '5<- c r_ (D 43) 0 7C) 0 Cl) 0 ro- � E '0 0 (D a (1) E a C (n C: q) 0 M Lim) OL x) > z_ 43 C: 0 cy) Z O'U Q) -a -C -0 -0 L) 4-; C: 0 co (n Q (3) c cc zz co CL (n (D Q) u) > E 0 y_ -' (D (D CE Z 4� CL > 0 D 0 0 14 Of LU w w 14 c O CL Ems= L. E c� u , o D L O o cr) 0 E G _ cm ++ ocl a < CL a� zi V) Qc�a C: CL 44Z CO O E N � O CL E � Q L +�+ 0 C x c -0 0 4a o o -C: Cl) c�� 0�(n E Q � o o Q� 0 ( . 7 C c 3 c Q � �aDco c�°�� c_D —_ 3 � L -0os� C 'U CBL d Q�- M Q �+ q} j O Uj [� a) c6 co co w n Q Q W cr- w m Z w z 0 T CL w w w ❑ 0 U a_ N r c.) LU w U) U) LU ❑ Q w a z k 0 3 M. 4 el C cn �. wCL L 1 C> a�� o cy)0 m' cwt -� rn 3 R'o � LO 0 ti ;'1 5 0 0Z j r.. LLJ Z C: LLI r■ L Cl1 Q(D Q O rti� { r CL M ■� V/�L N= N CL �11 Qvi_ 1 y 00 u� 7 a m ' QU Q) co 0 N w N 7 0� Q 5 " W � -0 o Q C S V? CL>- ++ 1� 0 ♦+ - :t; 0 0 W U) w ry r') CQ C) LU �z CL 0 -q- Qf, Ly 0 a) cr 0 0 CD Q 0 -0 0 E (n E cc 4-a L) 0 fc: CL VI 0 C1� Qi (D >" (D C < 0--- 6 E 4- (n Qf Z U) -; CL Q) CO CU -0. no E 0 0 2) 0 0 Qo (1) c 0 Lo CL ,.- C) C) 'o 0 E Q) 4 -- Lm V) (D CL CL 3: Q) a) O > a) a) 0-0 0 _0 C .— 0 C: cu CSC - M c a) E c 0 0 Q) 0 0 0- E 0 C (D M— (D 0 > 0 (1) C: rd _c-_ co E C: CL (D In 9) (D 0 E O 0 CL >- M 0 (D > 0 W U) w ry r') CQ C) LU �z 0 9 0) c0 0 U) y. LU IIN CL 0 E CZ CL E 2) (D LU cy- 0-0 0 of0 , N -I.., ui m CL 7t,- c 0 0 O CL 7; > ui < cLL E T u) z; Vi r m (D LU -j fl of r- .-0 C: 0 w r CL (Y) M 3: 0 r < (L)C C;) r- (1) o Q2 0 co 0 L) 0 0 0 E wu-- Q -,E >� Co M *J 0 0) a CL - C.SZ- > 0) 0-0 0 -+- C- .- W C: LU M (D - Q) LU 0 o u) o 0 (D ° o CL E (D S E O_ Q) D z 32!, 0 w (j) 0 MA-) (1) 0 -5 -Q)c 0 -2 0 CL 0 -0 _0 -0 C) U) U (D (D 4 2 _r_ cu C: E to (D (D U) 75 (D > 0 :E 0_ G- Q) > cu -0 (a LLJ - 9 y. IIN IIN -j 0 0 LU ca co 0 E -Z -6-14 %o 'o CT 0 C- 0 0 0 4-- Ct c -c LE 0 0-0, E V) r a) CL c CL 0 0 Lo (1) 2 Z) (D u < o--- o E ,A LU 0 'Or C) a. 0 -- c cn 0 CL r. Z; C) 0 LL 0 5, E Cl) < a) 0 0 U) U) Iff 0 0 cl cL .2 < 0 CL 4_(4 oEai CL 7FD > Q) (L) o -;o0 co.- 4� u) Ey p LLW _a " t� 0 o 0 o ECO ME C Q) m -0 5x0-4 7@ x 0-- 5 > > C 0 0 _0j a) -0 -c- io L) M 4i C: .2 co = (n -0 E cL Q) a) > E 0 iE 0 C)- a) > 0 U) m -0 m LU ca LU 0 LL1 ,A LU 0 C) a. LLI LL i Cl) U) U) LU cl < Yj CL 0.— co ._co o lot E Rom CD c O CL m Er— E a� o. N !C C Q� Q = C C: C_ U O Q) N A Q m 0-,-L o 0 T Z -a w EC- o a � cO cu . o U �Q�oo CL a) a a V) — d Q� 3 C a E Q A C Q) (D CL 0)O w=r+ a}�-� @ 0 W a) a) 0-0 O 0- c - W rry� o a) 0 -of �-0T(U0 ac': 0 L Q c o 0 'ao.-a) m`na�vi V M O w Q � Q 0 m "U � �nnS U v C- 9 r �•4 r s y= C O t +- 0 0 w, 1 C O +- 0•- a 'j 0 c� Q ' c I �a)cr Q O -C v... E C c E O W c: _ U-r- Q>" L • L � � G) 0-0 0 � _O n. 0 •- c m LU 1JJ i6 +J C O O'C --' Q Q m CL� W �LU U3 L Z . C..� Q 2 d ;. M f4 O C LU r (Y U) W C7 (� O C i.! U _ 5, E A Q0O0 O E ti�E A C a i r E L N 0 . 3 iD >'x c O C U r. �. w(D0-0o C N C w O E � L W , C O O w, 1 Lu a z J, r I a MR L -j w A4 i A tet` C O try 0•- a 'j Lu a z J, r I a MR L -j w A4 i A tet` C O 0•- a Q ' c I c E (D Q) � E O _ U-r- Q>" L +�+ it _O �!1! 1JJ i6 +J •M Lu a z J, r I a MR L -j w A4 i A tet` W m LU z 0 CL ui ui � C c O c� l lam^^- J �• L • O L p 1 o E L - w r� _ U) Y no- U O U) n o 20 Q �. +� aw�L� CL 73 -0 m�.0 E C N o CL a m Q-C 0 U 3: o ■a■. O �Qaat CO0 0 :3U D � O �O O 8-='R C E � O O N C. -° ; f 3 D > (n 3 O O D 'Q `o 0- 3 c) ■ H Wj O T 0 V L) Q }' 7 i V i� 0- 2 !FU) U L m E a 0 CL 41/ p � j O IfJ UM -0 m W m LU z 0 CL ui ui > N Ol L - w r� _ U) Y U) n C) Q �. 0 ,--I I..,- N rrr.r W Q = 0.- (D � L 0 U r� CL U) r. E 0 C_ 0 o a u = `o O 0 a o E c ar C) UJ N 5 w 0 N U) >1 > QJ C L I� ¢Q. - off L 0 0 LD U) M 0 0 M � C � o v -4- 703 � �Q5,00 O'0 0 o- �, as r- 2 O Lo — — 0 C- -=C •+- m U U o�W Q' +�+ C N (D Ci C s •� 0 a)mo-0o -0 C y 0Q) -'°o CL U O t�°��o cu .� W r o o C o 0 m -0 to -0 U s v+ m d s C (D Co o L m w J_ w LU co LU z 0 CL w J w I -- LU 0 U N F -= c� w w U) U) U) LU 1 3� Ns 0 0— 5 1- ui I r' zI 0 0— w n 5 1- I w n 0 0 LU Q J_ Q Lb I w L LU z O �v w LU y M L U •1 O n N L U � LU LU nn � e~ co U) w ❑ .. )J t/ LU z V c� rs► 1 L� O CL «. ca a n o C) L N N i� •r- c: lEN--- Qi ri O E •�� rJ 1Y N Ocl U O J W L w > N C 0 E o N 73 m -0 #� C� 0 co O � N o ro n� CL = �Q _ c�uQ�o L o oo + D U ++ 0 }� 0 V) 0 QN L C W CL p E O vU-- ■w. CL COLN 75 V ♦ �+ QF LO E o oa�Q.ao 0 C L) a� o N X - � > > � L d N 3 L 'p L CSS _ -0 U� U V Lrr Q) V (z I C^' W U a > E O :c �'- o�. a > � f �t tis r 0 LU Q J_ Q Lb I w L LU z O �v w LU y M L U •1 O n N L U � LU LU nn � e~ co U) w ❑ .. )J t/ LU z V c� rs► 1 L� C) i ri •�� rJ 1Y J �l �S , E 0 c w w if t a_ Lli C C C: 0 ) o CL 0 E '/ 7. m cr 0 -r- 0 < Z W (D E cy) o 3: C: L' Q) iw c a) CL 0 0 CL Vi 0 5 4%U0 ca r. < 0--- E 04 " 0 - LD V) =1 (n c U) 0 U) w E'- 0 0 0) 0 CD C: C Z) U o Q) 0 CL'�2 (1) C 0 M M � 0 4- 0 O E o Lr- C: 15 > -5� a) (D 0-0 o -0 C: (D o E 1: O.c 0 o 0 0- 0- 2!- Wor,, CL x > > Q) 0 C�ML) 0- 0 _0 Q) -0 TVl 7:s L) M — O EL) _0 a) CL >- 0 > 0 0 c w w if t a_ Lli C QJII ) '/ C) VI < Z as w LLI Cf) U) U) w 0 rn t� QJII ) '/ VI < Z 0 rn t� ) '/ VI as �10 rte■ O M 4 a— L c ■ CL U) O m E w � cn m 3: I m z R �i 4 ' j r� r� l ►v A� i i O U] U) M Q U E a ❑ Q coop°s t Q ° o� }' E C: — rn m ^� N O C C U 0 V w N u N N G L Qz U E Z O (U ul = .� w C Cly W Q� CO �Q(D0 rn c c o 0 � o � CL Q [n - O � c � CL m U U 0 Q E CU L LU U) O U �. Q)U Cl �v +�+ ° N 3 > Q) 0 -a 0 y N L11 =�=LU O f]' .�- L oa�i°•a0 c��n Q W U)0 O — C. > O Q QQ y-+ 0 j CD cu -G... E CL CL � Z— Co O 4� �+ t+ w w^e C U W Z m z R �i 4 V L ' j r� l ►v V L ' j l ►v A� V L ►v i f■ 0 m _ m M � L CL 75 V o r. m E V? � C O f4 CL E L L E 0 d E QQ�Q +' 4 C LR O � CO (U r- d'- roQ�oo ami o 0 m = o U) m d E ��- QC A cn CL 0) (D L LO 0 (D 0-0 o (D -� d c 0 '0^ 0 CL d� _ U . =s m -- N D x w. mco� o b�-0 � C: -0 c> -o Q1 a) cn 5 E #. 0- C) ++ > U) C� O 0 W m 75 Z LL z O d W J W H LU 0 O U IV U W W U) CO LLJ ❑ Q W Q Z P c U)0)O w ICL o E o � IT 4 c� c w 'G o rt.. � 3 (u w G 4 �. co.� m f o N u Q z m c a { G)cn "+ CL m ai �<5,E M Q 4- co COL c U ■� E N � o `p 4 Cj)'D N o 7" o� w o - E o - _c .3 cn � (D �C' 2-0 ¢ + cE o� a +. Q o ++ s J r :" 0 �` ^) a� , V Z v` 0 "/I 4r i N s� v.. C U) C O w Q O.. ) E ❑ In 0 J 0= a ._ E C O 0, � (D C L •+- C? r-+ O E C — � V) �+ a) C N LU C o co:Q V � � U V) : D Z }+ < E LU Z o aim r_ T- _ E w �■■�..� (� C fn ui CL r CO -0 . I� ^ VQ O E 0 D Q) N N o Q CL c C) C C O EnLU #� ^� W L)O ❑ LC:10c-cm N a) 3:a) a_ ■� AR W CL E py L t C N V >'x c O U �+■+ ♦ A V ♦ Q) N 0-0 O co m co ca w c E 7 cn E�_ c w ., cop co O 75 x > C L) Q+S+ 3 0°.' -0 70 U t w+ C ' L) M C> ax � C cc O C > E O a) ._. M _0 "/I 4r i N s� v.. r— to LU 1 Lj C • C L �+- Q1 E � as • � C � cs � N r `N ui N . C +J C Q U rn r cD N j N Z Q C L l!J 2 Q NI U) C LLI ' C _N ui co r o_.� ¢ � 0 S L C, r N a Q �. o 0 E (D O /�� CL L US CL 0 t' > O v x C -0 Y/ ul C: LU a L O c(—E r Q U Q) co +j -''Q�� \} �� a aCL t L0 0 y L 7 � C U M N U t � > (D V J {� V war 6 Allalk Washington State Department of Transportation Paula J. Hammond, P.E. Secretary of Transportation March 12, 2010 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner City of Renton Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Subject: Walmart Expansion LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF SR 167 / SR 405 vicinity Dear Ms. Timmons: 0 Northwest Region 157.0 Dayton Avenue North PC) Roy 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 206-440-4000 ' Fax >06-409-7250 TTY: 1-800-833-6388 'NvYw V.wsdat.tva,gcv City Of �'i nnirr9 DrVr; if017 E t r�� -' k -�' The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted for the above subject project. The proposed project includes a 15,900 sf expansion of the existing store to provide a grocery component. A total iperease of approximately 600 [rips during the day and 50 trips during the weekday PM peak hour is expected. The project site is on the NW corner of the SW Grady Way and SR167 (Rainier Ave S) intersection in the City of Renton. 1. Page ii — Executive Summary: the project expansion area should be 15.900 gsf, not 15,900 ft as shown_ 2. Figure 1: SR167 ends at MP27.28, which is at the intersection of Rainier Ave S and S 2"d St., north of the project site. Please label SR167 on the Vicinity Map and all applicable figures. 3. Page 4 — Roadway Network. as commented above, Rainier Ave S within the project limits is identified as SR167, not "becomes SR 167 further south of the project site" as stated. Please revise. 4. The provided traffic analysis assumptions and findings were found adequate. The minimal increase in trips would not significantly impact State highway system within the project vicinity. If you have any questions, or require additional information please contact Felix Palisoc of our Developer Services section by phone at 206-440-4713, or via e-mail at palisof@wsdot.wa.gov. Z �'U Ramin Local Agency and Development Services Manager RP: fsp cc: Project 1 Day Pile Rick Roberts, MS 120 City of Ren Department of Community & Economic Defopment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT. -Co r COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way_. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources 8. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS f Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li ht/Gfore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/cultural Preservation Airport Environment IQ, D0O Feet 14, 000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date • King County Wastewater Treatment Division Community Services and Environmental Planning King Street Center, KSC-NR-0505 204 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98104-3855 March 5"', 2010 Rocale Timmons CED- Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Walmart Expansion Dear Mr. Timmons; C►ty'If Fjento,, "l�tr;r�ir1P Dhlision MAR 8 lOiQ The King County Wastewater Treatment Division has reviewed the Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance dated February 22nd for the demolition of a restaurant and expansion of a Walmart. King County requires that a capacity charge be applied to any project that constructs a new connection to the sewer system, any reconnection within five years of a disconnection, or any change in use or building remodel that includes an increase in plumbing fixtures. King County generally receives notice of new construction; however, some sewer districts and/or the cities that represent them have neglected to report changes in use and tenant improvements that involve an increase in plumbing fixtures. In an attempt to remedy this problem, we are sending this reminder to you in response to the Notice of Application with Optional Determination of Non -significance. We ask that you forward this reminder to the sewer district or city department responsible for Sewer Use Certification forms: Please complete and send a Non -Residential Sewer Use Certification form for the above project to the King County Capacity Charge Program in a timely manner. The form should be sent to Ericka Stewart, Capacity Charge Program, KSC-NR-0502, at the address above. if you need additional forms or have questions about the program, please call Ericka at (206) 684- 1060, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. Y ely n o ntlgy l� Community Services Environmental Planning cc: Ericka Stewart, Program Manager, Capacity Charge Program CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER a. 9 L-9 King County Wastewater Treatment Division Environmental Planning and Community Services King Street Center, KSC-NR-0505 209 South Jackson Street Seattle, WA 98904-3855 March 2"', 2010 Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner CED - Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 RE: Walmart Expansion Dear Mr. Timmons; 0 City of Renton Purina_ DiVIS101-L MAR -- 8 2010 The King County Wastewater Treatment Division (WTD) has reviewed the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance dated February 22"d, 2010. King County's Eastside Interceptor is located within or near the proposed location of your project (see attached drawings). In order to protect this wastewater facility, King County is requesting that the City of Renton do the following: • Submit construction drawings for the project to our Asset Management section for review during design development so that King County staff can assess project impacts. Please send drawings to: Bob Isaac, Local Public Agency Administrator King County WTD Asset Management 201 South Jackson Street, KSC-NR-0508 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Thank you for opportu y to review and comment on this proposal. Sincerely, / Al o oun jo / Envi ental P nJ(ing & mmunity Services cc: Bob Isaac, Local Public Agency Administrator, Engineering & Asset Management [Attachment(s)] CREATING RESOURCES FROM WASTEWATER AHdVa9oloHd d0 31VO 30NIs 535NVHD 103-lj3a 44 1ON 04 aNV AMNO 31Vwlxoaddv 3aV SanOlN43 8961'NVi NI 03W60dk33d AHd4aDD10Hd -I4I63V �Z a�� ^'" OD Z�a�� �— ��y ROS Q { ❑ua O a w o U) LLP ti4w - Z xVW.W .. W Kr c, chn LLJ I I Icr � � 4tih 9 ,Y O w i t lk h l!) F� wr n \ Ii N Lu 4, y1 L h1 L�` Lu kL 13 z En ` �• 2 �I I, I fly II a 4e � � . I � •;. pp W� 1I a aZ��.h bEFtLS I � i ' �; Ul W0. I,d H2 li 7i, Lm' LLJ ' e�2 I�ES�fti a � I ��� Cl- Or 1 „ o �1 Wu7 qj ! Q CL oA 0.Q.: i 8 4 - ��2! —_.4� h - 2 WL 4i I i e ■ I � � ) I 1, .4j 8 h as Lu t �� �� yr3��•' > 1, l4�� '+L"ki i�,�pZ� W Q _ ocl L �� IY. �4` I _ ku h �. JQ�p q4. y 4Ury 4 o V I D D ta s i U � ��' rn a LL, TI ° k I I ; I I I i� 4• � - f�q' W'4 j+ 4ti ? c y vRo� W ►4r W� jII N kjA�he� 4�tigW v "moo o INN v I i 1* J W'4� ! IIII Illlil li I I ! R?24i0 w l� 0 J� k4`' yh�, W, h: p vILL m�� III I ,..� I 'I I In a 4 �� bq w pW ` v W °s W U� 4ti Z �q0♦ I I, I II'il � II J I i 04a11 h 4r?`�`h >v � �� � 4 ��' 4M� WNtWi Q � 2�4 ��` CC Q � Z h :AhAoy �e 2k s J - I Ilf II �jq 1! i yI.'�{ I WR `h u Q �h Q�' 4 w hgj_ o VII 4�COl9h C�a� �li i!II 1, Illill jl Itil�; '+ II d 1 4 wr . ;lL� z _ k+u�� �hw ` 'i I i' I I. III �!j I ; '" � • ; II!' I Q? �� � ya , 17 Z i h O q '.�'Au 0 � J �. w I� � i' i;i ;I l' i I I Z w Z �� �� O a Z Z� w> - W �q •I. h. itli� ~lilll�l j� ;II, IIIA W Er UU) a a. w Iil,l'II lil��Ilj MI i! �I ilp d iti y a ❑� � Iii' I' I il,;.j�y; I ! wl ilrlf h II: I "j 4 :yo Q°� 4 * tiQ"I II �j I .i 'I Ili li � � `•� WtiC ti N� Er w I c �` QhZW II II i1 t1 u _ 4 "° oa e d, oa�au,� q, il'i ill!;;trl til t 11 II'I. ijl Wti ��, ° h h 0 W I� II' l 'II, I'I lili � a ' m �ZQ ��4 q4a� I I �� I I�� Illil � illll i i.'Ij1 h 0. any W � y,4n pWQ ,�,y,'�ti+�+►► 4 .1..� rLr. II .a i} t=I}1 i' {i;ll �p� �� - 39 v]��q'- jZ — �� Lj 0 CI' � f l IIS h' i'1 41 +:-1 �il II III Illli I I i� I a li l I Ill IIII i �, i II a� W� -- illj ljl �I� � .IIII � I, I Ii; 'll 1 i �� j{s,• I�4 j II; II, i I I W C j3♦ � h,°�`E �'�� 'i�`�' �'�� i- ��i I. � I I ��II I I � � fi l �Q! l ��11 :IIS Fi... '..&I � d3,,d�'� ', - s 4 y l I. ,l`, 3� , I I' i I . I IIII Iii � S QQ fI +n 1 'j I. -{ y .a I Q�cJ IIII j 11 i f— h�oro; \ IIj S'!ulll ,I Ili' h �,Ui�`�� III I I I II I��' I I _ WWW�ti�� I rrji, 11, li Y I � �dc •--� Q mfg r lb _ •� @: ♦- i.[I Q I s+- .� III ;I{I,'. I -I.1 r h I II cl i y I � as !�', ¢e Q I i 1 'f, 1 I. •y q ^ OSr4gF I�, i'; , 'yip `�' �j A i 1, r ` gp�ti �q�uM I U Whnti, i Ii II I ;I IIII Irt', ,I11+1 I �a'� tr o w kcUN V r` 4'OZW �'—l�, , y n N I tiara i I I II,,li l l I4iJ ; , ii -f �' tigp� vhp� t r •7r -rF ��l- �� r' -f m8 WQh 2t W SW w h� r :i til 7" I' + p f`4l�Cc, I I ti o� q'ti6 ti I., V Z ti li I li I W �K h I j- "Skuq I I I 'I I til � y s a w �`qV v 4� �• 4 dhti '�[� ' I'• i I I II i IIS Ali l I, �ti;,<�Q 0 i '7 r I'' i. I' ! '' '' � �• ��Q h I;I I j� r I; I Ill � z a ° 0a Ij U�N�♦ L 7h g� lej� 11I' III III I i' i' ryl Q & j � a u d II _,•_ J.. � i� I Ij !r'II j'� li, III 4 Q � I I z a I'4, lit 'Il �� t I I a a �ItH a x R ti � J U! h Z Lhh��u y� 14 h a City of Renton Deportment of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: COMMENTS DUE: MARCH S, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4.QQ0 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Bill McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (iM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way... There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Cade) COMMEN Elementofthe Environment Probable Probable Minor Major impacts Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlShoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy) Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS Ali 5 ACU i�� S .i 0 (i ci V1 C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservotion Airport Environment Io, 000 Feet 14, 000 Feet IS I COs -Pel 64 i i ---e- r-h+ip ed i rn r° r*�I art clvl� VA 10 e� IV, tier -e, We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. -e /a/10 Signature o irect r or Authorized Representative Dat DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY c�ty'or AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 2010 TO: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division FROM: Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor -)P-3 SUBJECT: Walmart Site Plan Amendment 743 Rainier Avenue S LUA-10-009, SA -H EXISTING CONDITIONS WATER 1. The site is currently served by the Renton water utility. 2. There is an existing 12 -inch looped main on the site serving the existing building. 3. The project site is located in the 196 Water Pressure Zone. 4. Fire flow availability to the site is approximately 5600 gpm from the existing 12 -inch main with the controlling factor being the limit on velocity in mains to S feet/second. 5. The static water pressure is approximately 75 psi. SEWER The existing building is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City of Renton line directly connected to the Metro line. STORM 1. The site is located in the Black River drainage system and is currently connected to the existing system in SW 7th Street. No downstream flooding issues are reported. 2. The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site which is proposed to be expanded and revised. A report and calculations confirming the proposed site redevelopment does not trigger flow control standards must be submitted with the formal application. 3. A preliminary drainage plan addressing the redevelopment detention and water quality requirements in accordance with the 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual is required. A design and TIR have been submitted with the project that meet preliminary requirements. STREETS The site has frontage on SW 7th Street, Hardie Avenue SW, and Rainier Avenue. All are served with full width right-of-way and amenities. CODE REQUIREMENTS WATER The Water System Development Charge (SDC) is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. SANITARY SEWER The Wastewater System Development Charge is also based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. The SDC is only triggered with a change or additions in number or size of meter. Fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. SURFACE WATER The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $4.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. Minimums may apply, and this fee is payable with a construction or utility permit. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip, as calculated by the ITE manual. Fees are due with the building permit for all commercial structures. A traffic study supporting 608 additional daily trips was submitted and approved. The Traffic mitigation fee is $45,600.00 2. ADA crossing improvements are required to be evaluated and in compliance when construction occurs on the site. PLAN REVIEW - GENERAL 1. All plans shall conform to the Renton Drafting Standards. 2. A construction permit is required for any utility work. When plans are complete, three copies of the drawings, two copies of the drainage report, a construction estimate, application, and appropriate fee shall be submitted to the City Hall sixth floor counter. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. Temporary Erosion Control shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the representative of the Development Services Division for the duration of any construction project. 2. Weekly reports on the status and condition of the erosion control plan, with any recommendations of change or revision to maintenance schedules or installation, shall be submitted by the project Engineer of record to the Public Works Inspector. Certification of the installation, maintenance, and proper removal of the erosion control facilities is required prior to Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. CC: Neil Watts a � City of Ren on Department of Community & Economic Dev opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C � ft�_�.h-� COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D_ Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element ofthe Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animols Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Go "xk e -PTS ZA*M 3 q e'W to B. POLICY -RELATED C. CODE-RELATEE[ COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li hVGiore Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. of Director or Authorized Representative W Date z tip' O DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC * ♦ DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 1, 2010 TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review Dave Pargas, Fire Department0 FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the Walmart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these pians instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219. Thank you. hAl \planninglcurrent plwminglprojects110-009.rocalelrevision memo.doc i ~ S# 861 + + ?T TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION FEE Project Name: Walrnart Short Plat �� P10 -4-A — Project Address: 743 Rainier Avenue S Contact Person: Jeff Chambers - PacLand Permit Number: LUA09-157 1-Ulk }Q_ ppy Project Description: 3 - lot Commercial SHPL 15,892 sq ft Store Expansion Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: ❑Residential x ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition X Retail x Traffic Study (calculations only) ❑ Non -retail ❑ Other Calculation per 7th Edition: (813) Discount Superstore 49.21/1000 sq ft 15.892 x 49.21 = 782 ADT 782 x $75 = $58,650 Per Transpo: 608 ADT 0cmWe I- a aL701 608 x $75 = $45,600 -` 9-AwS�= Transportation Mitigation Fee: Calculated by: Date of Payment: $45,600 K. Kittrick Date: 1/13/2010 City of Rendon Department of Community & Economic Del pment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: .- COMMENTS DUE: MARCH $, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces_ As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave 5, Hardie Ave S and 5 Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htJGlare Recreation Utilities Trans ortotion Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet -Nfr s 401 '.'� 5w Go+.lMellarS DATES :I/A//jNol v B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS G CODE -RELATED We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and hove identified areas of proboble impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal, 3 L,-)0)19 Dat 0 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC ♦ DEVELOPMENT 'Na M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 1, 2010 TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review vcs Dave Pargas, Fire Department FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the Walmart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these plans instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219. Thank you. Zf 8,ta hAceftlanninglcurrent planninglprojects110-009.rocalelreaision memo.doc CITY OF RENTON � ° FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU d9 MEMORANDUM 0/ Ngo/ DATE: March 2, 2010 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Comments for Walmart Expansion Environmental Impact Comments: 1. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of the additional commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. Five fire hydrants are required. One within 150 -feet and four within 300 -feet of the buildings. Any existing hydrants used to satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5 -inch storz fittings. No objections to proposed fire hydrant relocations. It appears adequate fire flow and fire hydrants already exist on site. 2. Approved fire sprinkler systems are required throughout the building. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 3. An approved full detection, fully addressable automatic fire alarm system is required throughout the entire building, both new and existing. Separate plans and permits are required by the fire department. 4. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 -feet of all points on the building. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes. See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans. CT: ct walmart y e • Renton Fire Department PRE -FIRE PLANNING In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy, ABC Flowcharter.aO ABC Flowcharter.af2 Adobe Illustrator File.ai AutoCad Drawin .dw AutoCad Drawin .d =n Computer Graphics Metafile.c gm Corel Cli art Format,cmx Core] DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr Core] Flow_cfl Encapsulated Postscript File.e s Enhanced Metafile,emf ICES Drawing File Format.i s Graphics Interchange Format. if Macintosh PICT Format.pct Micro rafx Designer Ver 3, t.drw Micro rafx Designer Ver 6,0.dsf Microstation Drawin =.d n Portable Network Graphics Format. of Postscript File, s —Tag Image File Format,tif Text.txt Text.csv VISIO_vsd Windows Bitma .bm Windows Bitma .dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma ex A City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Deve opment ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: , COMMENTS DUE: MARCH S, 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: RocaleTimmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres I EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue 5 I PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces_ As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable Environment Minor Major Impacts Impacts More information Necessary Earth Air water Plants tand/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Elementof the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Li htlGlare Recreation Utilities Trons ortation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 1 p,ROD Feet 14,000 Feet ��- We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to propefly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: , 11 Z_ COMMENTS bur-: MARCH Sr 2010 APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 2010 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Rocale Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick SITE AREA: 13.6 acres EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square feet LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,000 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north_ The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D. Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way.. There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information impacts impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants LandlMoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cuftural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet M r7t? '4:�F_= I ibbu $off a We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date City of Renton Department of Community & Economic Development ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIkW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: C .�( `[ COMMENTS DUE: MARCH 8, 2010 3:rn APPLICATION NO: LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Z f3 DATE CIRCULATED: FEBRUARY 22, 201053 APPLICANT: Jeff Chambers - PACLAND PLANNER: Racaie Timmons PROJECT TITLE: Walmart Expansion PLAN REVIEWER: Kayren Kittrick -4 CD SITE AREA: 13.6 acres Z EXISTING BLDG AREA (gross): 134,352 square Wt LOCATION: 743 Rainier Avenue S Cn PROPOSED BLDG AREA (gross) 150,244 square feet SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review and Environmental (SEPA) Review for the construction of additions to the existing Walmart retail facility, which contains 134,352 square feet of retail space with an additional 9,000 square feet used for the Garden Center. The applicant is proposing 16,040 square feet of additions to the retail space and a reduction of 4,000 square feet in the Garden Center. The expansion of the facility is predominately located along the northern facade with facade modifications along the eastern elevation. The proposal includes the re -striping of the existing surface parking lot with an expansion of the lot to the north. The expansion includes 127 additional parking stalls resulting in a total of 745 parking spaces. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is proposing associated landscaping and pedestrian pathways in addition to the demolition of the existing restaurant formerly known as Billy McHales. The site area is approximately 13.6 acres and is located within the Commercial Arterial (CA) and Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designations and is also located within Urban Design District D_ Access for the proposed lots would continue to be provided via existing driveways along SW 7th Street, Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave S and S Grady Way._ There appear to be no critical areas on-site. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (e.g. Non -Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Air Water Plants Land/Shoreline Use Animals Environmental Health Energy/ Natural Resources Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Housing Aesthetics Light/Glare Recreation Utilities Transportation Public Services Historic/Cultural Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 0 46k-, c B. POLICY -RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE -RELATED COMMENTS We hove reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional informat0u 5 needed to properly assess this proposal. 44�4�a tL/6 re of Director or Authorized Representative Date 0 0 u DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WR M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 1, 2010 TO: Kayren Kittrick, Plan Review Dave Pargas, Fire Department FROM: Rocale Timmons, Planning Division SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion, LUA10-009, SA -H, ECF Attached you will find a revised Drainage, Grading, Utility and Landscape Plans for the Wal mart Expansion. Changes were made to the drainage report which affected the sizing of the proposed bio-swale, grading and utility plan. Please review these plans instead of the plans that were routed on February 22, 2010. Comments are still due by March 8, 2010. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, ext. 7219. Thank you. hacedlplanninglcurrent planninglprojects110-009.rocalelrevision memo.doc Ar ! 0 CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 22nd day of February, 2010, 1 deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing Acceptance Letter, NOA, Environmental Checklist & PMT documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Agencies See Attached Jeff Chambers Contact Bonnell Family LLC (Peter Bonnell) Owner 300' Surrounding Property Owners - NOA only See attached (Signature of Sender): STATE OF WASHINGTON ) j SS COUNTY OF KING j I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Stacy M. Tucker signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Z'tik� Notary (Print): My appointment expires: lot C" Notary Public in and for the State of Washington S3 ra +e yWalmart Expansion ro�ec x l "Ii LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H template - affidavit of service by mailing � ` 0 • AGENCY (DOE) LETTER MAILING (ERC DETERMINATIONS) Dept. of Ecology * WDFW - Larry Fisher* Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Fisheries Dept. Environmental Review Section 1775 12th Ave. NW Suite 201 Attn: Karen Walter or SEPA Reviewer PO Box 47703 Issaquah, WA 98027 39015 —172nd Avenue SE Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Auburn, WA 98092 WSDOT Northwest Region * Duwamish Tribal Office * Muckleshoot Cultural Resources Program Attn: Ramin Pazooki 4717 W Marginal Way SW Attn: Ms Melissa Calvert King Area Dev. Serv., M5-240 Seattle, WA 98106-1514 39015 172nd Avenue SE PO Box 330310 Auburn, WA 98092-9763 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 US Army Corp. of Engineers * KC Wastewater Treatment Division * Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation* Seattle District Office Environmental Planning Supervisor Attn: Gretchen Kaehler Attn: SEPA Reviewer Ms. Shirley Marroquin PO Box 48343 PO Box C-3755 201 S. Jackson ST, MS KSC-NR-050 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 Seattle, WA 98124 Seattle, WA 98104-3855 Boyd Powers * Depart. of Natural Resources PO Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504-7015 KC Dev. & Environmental Serv. City of Newcastle City of Kent Attn: SEPA Section Attn: Steve Roberge Attn: Mr. Fred Satterstrom, AICP 900 Oakesdale Ave. SW Director of Community Development Acting Community Dev. Director Renton, WA 98055-1219 13020 Newcastle Way 220 Fourth Avenue South Newcastle, WA 98059 Kent, WA 98032-5895 Metro Transit Puget Sound Energy City of Tukwila Senior Environmental Planner Municipal Liaison Manager Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official Gary Kriedt Joe Jainga 6200 Southcenter Blvd. 201 South Jackson Street KSC-TR-0431 PO Box 90868, MS: XRD-01W Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle, WA 98104-3856 Believue, WA 98009-0868 Seattle Public Utilities Real Estate Services Attn: SEPA Coordinator 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4900 PO Box 34018 Seattle, WA 98124-4018 *Note: If the Notice of Application states that it is an "Optional DNS", the marked agencies and cities will need to be sent a copy of the checklist, Site Plan PMT, and the notice of application. template - affidavit of service by mailing #--% - • 0 334040246509 192305905809 AZULE PROPERTIES LLC BONNELL FAMILY L L C 5411 154TH AVE SE C/A RENTON HONDA AUTO CT BELLEVUE WA 98006 PO BOX 4040 RENTON WA 98057 192305910403 BONNELL FAMILY LLC 10047 MAIN ST #509 BELLEVUE WA 98004 182305921104 CCD ENTERPRISES INC 1555 132ND AVE NE STE B BELLEVUE WA 98005 192305908506 GREENWELL/RENTON L.L.0 P 0 BOX 2399 KAILUA KONA HI 96745 192305906708 LANPHERE PROPERTIES I LLC PO BOX 4040 RENTON WA 98057 192305902707 PIEROTTI LLC 16113 SE 170TH PL RENTON WA 98058 192305906807 SOUND FORD INC 750 RAINIER AVE S KENT WA 98055 192305904802 WALMART PROPERTY TAX DEPT PO BOX 8050 MS 0555 BENTONVILLE AR 72712 182305903805 BRIDGE ROBERT DBA KCB CO PO BOX 1055 RENTON WA 98057 192305905304 D&C INVESTMENTS LLC 720 RAINIER AVE S RENTON WA 98055 334040257001 HYFIVE INCORPORATED 4350 LAKE WASHINGTON BLVD N RENTON WA 98056 192305906401 MCLENDON HARDWARE INC 715 LIND AVE SW RENTON WA 98055 192305901709 RA MAC INC 4607 FOREST AVE SE MERCER ISLAND WA 98040 192305904703 T & I LLC DBA RMC 900 LIND AVE SW RENTON WA 98055 192305907300 BONNELL FAMILY LLC C/A USW PETROL CORP #115 906 RANCHERO CONE10 BLVD NEWBURY PARK CA 91320 334040259502 BROTHERTON CADILLAC 215 SW 12TH ST RENTON WA 98055 182305925303 FACILITIES & OPERATIONS CTR OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIR 300 SW 7TH ST RENTON WA 98055 182305925204 ICM 500 LLC C/O ISH PROPERTIES INC 14900 INTERURBAN AVE S #210 TUKWILA WA 98168 192305906005 PDA L L C 6731 EAST MARGINAL WAY S SEATTLE WA 98108 334040439500 SHERIDAN PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 935 RENTON WA 98057 192305910007 TENNESSEE GROUP L L C MCLENDON HARDWARE INC 715 LIND AVE SW RENTON WA 98055 Denis Law Mayor dL 4 Department of Community and Economic Development February 22, 2010 Alex Pietsch, Administrator Attn: John Lefotu and Ramin Pazooki Washington State Department of Transportation 15700 Dayton Avenue North PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 SUBJECT: Walmart Expansion LUA10-009, ECF, SA -H Dear Sirs: Enclosed is a copy of the TIA for the subject land use application along with a copy of the proposed site plan. The Environmental Review is scheduled for March 22, 2010. 1 would appreciate your comments prior to the meeting, preferably by March 8, 2010, if possible to incorporate any comments into the staff report. If you have additional comments or concerns, you may either send them via mail or email to rtimmons@rentonwa.gov. Sincerely, Ro le Timmons Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Project File Kayren Kittrick, City of Renton — Plan Review Renton City Hall + 1055 South Grady Way • Renton, Washington 98057. • rentonwa.gov LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: April 15, 2010 To: Rocale Timmons City of Renton — Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: April Pust,4f Re: Wal-Mart Store #2516-05 Expansion; Renton, WA Revised Site Plan and Elevations City Of Renta r?ir)g Di,,,,o,n QO Remarks: Please find enclosed the following items for the Walmart Store #2516-05 Site Plan Review: • Five (5) Full -Size Revised Site Plans, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Full -Size Revised Color Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Copy of the Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • Three (3) Sets of Revised Elevations (not including Sheets 1 and 6), dated March 17, 2010. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact us at (206) 522-9510. mgrCORrttrOl Am 2505 WESrLaKE AVE. N. T 246.522.4510 sui,L 305 P 706.522AS344 mi. SEAT TL E, WA 98104 WWW.PACLAND.COM LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: April 15, 2010 To: Rocale Timmons City of Renton — Planning Division 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 From: April Pust,4f Re: Wal-Mart Store #2516-05 Expansion; Renton, WA Revised Site Plan and Elevations City Of Renta r?ir)g Di,,,,o,n QO Remarks: Please find enclosed the following items for the Walmart Store #2516-05 Site Plan Review: • Five (5) Full -Size Revised Site Plans, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Full -Size Revised Color Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • One (1) Copy of the Reduced Site Plan, dated April 14, 2010. • Three (3) Sets of Revised Elevations (not including Sheets 1 and 6), dated March 17, 2010. If you have any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact us at (206) 522-9510. mgrCORrttrOl Am assoffisrN r March 4, 2010 Ms. Rocaale Timmons, Associate Planner City of Renton, Current Planning 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 41-5430-7219 RIS: Wal-Mart Store 42516 743 Rainier avenue South Renton, WA 98057 425-227-0407 Project -9 0901033 [.sear Ms. Tinimans: • ]City of Renton Planning Division MAR 0 4 HF,(C[UV1F_,D Please: accept this letter for review and approval of the Walmart Store for rerusc arca (til sq ft per 1.000 sq ft of gross building area). In accordance with RMC 4-4-090 Refuse and Recyclables Standards, the Walrnart store is a Commercial Retail with a self contained compactor and a recyclable area. In the paragraphs that follow, I have described the use of the compactor in lieu of refuse area. As shown on the Site Flan, there is a 12' x 90' recyclable area provided. "Ther proposed building square.footage is 150, 244 square feet_ Per the Standards, the required recyclables area is 751 square feet and die recyclable area square footage provided is 1,080 square feet. The required refuse area square footage is 1,502 .square feet. The proposed building, layout is designed with a ail cu. yd. self contained vompactor, which is engineered for higli volurne usage. The self contained compactor reduces refuse pick up white eliminating Mid seepage: and minimizing odors, therebycmating more sanitary conditions. The proposed self contained compactor meets the objectives, environmental protection and appearance intended by the standards. 1 res*tful:ly request approval to use a self contained compactor instead of the required refuse area. "Iliank you for considering this request. If you have any questions regarding; this request, please do not hesitate 10 COMACt MO. I look forward to hearing frorn you. Sincerely, f Usunobun Osagie Contact. Usatoobair 0sagie, 214-749-0626 ext.749 or etnai! uosagiO'rhaaio.cr m 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N. T 2Q22,9510 SLATE 305 F 206.522.8344 5EATTLE, WA 98109 WWW.PACLAND.COM = s February 25, 2010 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Rocale Timmons Cf#Y Of City of Renton — Planning Division planning �ntal7 Renton City Hall s,on 1055 S. Grady Way FES ��?U Renton, WA 98057 Subject: Store #2516-05; Renton, WA 'RecreVZ Site Plan Review Revision Submittal Dear Ms. Timmons: We are pleased to submit on behalf of Walmart Stores Inc. the following revised documents relating to the Walmart Site Plan Review for the expansion of Walmart Store #2516-05: • Twelve (12) copies of the revised Grading and Drainage Plan, dated February 25, 2010. • Five (5) copies of the revised Grading and Drainage Plan, dated February 25, 2010. • Four (4) copies of the revised Drainage Report, dated February 25, 2010. • Five (5) copies of the revised Landscape Plan, dated February 25, 2010. • Five (5) copies of the revised Utility Plan, dated February 25, 2010. • Two (2) reduced copies of each plan sheet, dated February 25, 2010. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding these revisions or the proposed expansion. Sincerely, April K. Pust Designer City of Renton erton LAND USE PE RMIT MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME: BONNELL FAMILY, LLC CONTACT: PETER BONNELL ADDRESS: 10047 MAIN STREET #509 CITY: BELLEVUE ZIP: 98004 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (425) 453-1414 APPLICANT (if other than owner) NAME: JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E. COMPANY (if applicable): PACLAND 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N., SUITE 305 ADDRESS: CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98109 TELEPHONE NUMBER: (206) 522-9510 CONTACT PERSON NAME: JEFF CHAMBERS, P.E. COMPANY (if applicable): PACLAND ADDRESS: 1505 WESTLAKE AVE. N., SUITE 305 CITY: SEATTLE ZIP: 98109 TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS: (206) 522-9510 JCHAMBERS@PACLAND.COM PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: WALMART #2516-05; RENTON EXPANSION PROJECT/ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION AND ZIP CODE: 743 RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WA 98057 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): 1923059048 1923059072 EXISTING LAND USE(S): RETAIL, 1 RESTAURANT PROPOSED LAND USE(S): EXPANDED RETAIL EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: CC (COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR) EAV (EMPLOYMENT AREA VALLEY) PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable) NIA EXISTING ZONING: CA (COMMERCIAL ARTERIAL) IM (INDUSTRIAL MEDIUM PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): N/A SITE AREA (in square feet): 594,553 SF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PUBLIC ROADWAYS TO BE DEDICATED: N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENTS: 19,171 SF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN UNITS PER NET ACRE (if applicable) NIA NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS (if applicable) NIA NUMBER OF NEW DWELLING UNITS (if applicable):N/A S:',.Washington\Renton',,grimes',,Rainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4RepoilslFattitlemetttlProperty Owner Docs',.Land Use Pennit Master Application (Si(e Plan Review).doc - I - I PROJECT INFORMAT NUMBER OF EXISTING DWELLING UNITS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): NIA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): N/A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): APPROX. 16,000 SF BUILDING EXPANSION AND APPROX. 4,000 SF GARDEN CENTER REDUCTION. SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (if applicable): 134,352SF OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO REMAIN (WALMART). 6,547 SF RESTAURANT BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED. NET FLOOR AREA ON NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (if applicable): APPROX. 16,000 SF OF NEW RETAIL BUILDING AREA. NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE NEW PROJECT (if applicable): APPROXIMATELY 85 NEW AND 300 EXISTING FULL]PART-TIME EMPLOYEES. A ION (continIffed PROJECT VALUE: TBD IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREA, PLEASE INCLUDE SQUARE FOOTAGE (if applicable): ❑ AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA ONE El AQUIFIER PROTECTION AREA TWO ❑ FLOOD HAZARD AREA sq. ft. ❑ GEOLOGIC HAZARD sq. ft. ❑ HABITAT CONSERVATION sq. ft. ❑ SHORELINE STREAMS & LAKES sq. ft. ❑ WETLANDS sq. ft. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Attach legal description on separate sheet with the following information included SITUATE IN THE _NW_ QUARTER OF SECTION _19_, TOWNSHIP _23_, RANGE _05—, IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES List all land use applications being applied for: 1. SITE PLAN REVIEW 3. 2. V-hf4foopy-44 (zic", 4. Staff will calculate applicable fees and postage: $ 3 S!,Washington\Renton`,grimes',.Rainier Ave & 7th Expansion'%.4ReportslEntitlementiproperly Owner Docs,Land Use Permit Master Application (Site Plan Review).doc- 2 - 0 0 PROJECT INFORMATION !continue AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP I, (Print Namels) - ,declare under penalty of perjunder the laws of the State of Washington that l (please check one) _ the current owner of the property involved in this application or the authorized representative to act for a corporation (please attach proof of authorization) and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I certify that f know or have satisfactory evidence that "ki- signed this instrument and acknowledge it to b hiOarftheir free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the tttstrument. (Sig tore of Owner/Representative) Notarl Public in and for the State of W ington (Signature of OwnerlRepreseniadve) Notsiry Fpbllc RUTHAW A SCHAFER My COMIMISS*N EXPIRES o:. January, 201 1 Notary (Print) 7 t.A- My appointment expires: S:1WashinXknnlRentontgrirocs%Rainier Ave &, 71h Expansion4ReportsTcrfnil IlemslLand Use Pcrmit Masler Application (Site Plan Reviewl.doc -3 - 9 F-.� PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS City of Renton Pianning Division FEB - 8 N10 HEMEN LANO'U$E PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MOL1tFlg!D d()MMENTS FtC11iPStdTS: BY: 6Y: Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Pian t Plat Name Reservation 4 Preapplication Meeting Summary 4 POlic Wnr U Ap rFC �€ lett x Rehabilitation Plan 4 Seraeivrt�.Cl�ieil:,� ... Site Plan 2AND 4 Stream or Lake Study, Supplemental 4 silsoirn°vr CAW, I wiga; Plan 4 Street Profiles 2 Tile R9"�Cri C$r Certifi ;ate 4 Topography Map 3 Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan 4 POan{ e ferl ! sigh 3uer#ay I�i�trioi Report d Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wllarrtislitt�4r#''i, ! iri�l A Wetlands Mitigation Pian, Preliminary 4 V1+et arxds epor ; llneaWn ¢ Wireless: Applicant Agreement Statement 2 AND 3 Inventory of Existing Sites z ANc3 Lease Agreement, Draft 2 AND 3 Map of Existing Site Conditions 2 ANc 3 Map of Yew Area 2AND 3 Photosim ulations 2 AND 3 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: V` fit— - ►-' -f c � , a � 2. Public Works Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: G 4. Planning Section Q:1WES1PWOEVSERVAForms\Pianninglwaiverofsubmittalregs.xis OWN D 0 0 PLANNING DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS r:; WQ USE-pERMIT.SUOMIIiTAL 'WAWW: ::: MO[lVED 100MMENTS: Calculations i Gr�lote�¢ Rs -.for isplay4 Construction Mitigation Description 2 AND 4 r_ieEIl Q { 1�'Qf �d Dedilw griffon Density Worksheet 4 prair"pge 00hl*'bI Plant Drainage Report z . ... ...... -. ...... Elev,AW4 ; ArcWeatural3AW4 Environmental Checklist a ET 6iir -06.6 er "f-'Reeorded dpy) 4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 • Plans 3AH04 �Floor - Grading Plan, Conceptual Gr0dir*.P!a9,.Detalle :z Habitat Data Report 4 lrrrjirc�r�ierit:l�rrai. � - •. . Irrigation Pian 4 KIrkk Ass�t'r: Map Iridir.0ing:iSit0 4' Landscape Plan, Conceptual Legal Description 4 > � t of t Enrorit d�rr lNoper4y ownm 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map 4.l=xastir� �!�'�pndilionsg Master Application Form 4 �liortur-iii i�a�r� (grid per-i�orri�rnen€�. i . • Neighborhood Detail Map 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: _�/�I .►— �-'� �� sit Dtj 2. Public Warks Plan Review Section 3. Building Section DATE: _ i z A 0 9 4. Planning Section Q:1WESTWV)EVSERVTormslPlanninglvmiverofsubmiW(egs.xls pyps PREAPPLICATION MEETING FORPityof"�Pt on WAL -MA RT EXPANSIONnnlng DrvislQ SW Grady and Rainer Ave CITY of RENTON Department of Community and Economic Current Planning Division PRE09-466 November 24, 2409 Contact Information: Planner: Rocale TlmmDns Phone: 425.430.7219 Public Works Reviewer: Kayren Kittrick Phone: 425.430.7299 Fire Prevention Reviewer: Dave Pargas Phone: 425.430,7023 Building Department Reviewer: Craig Burnell Phone: 425.430,7290 FEB - & 21110 necew Development Please retain this packet throughout the course of your project as a reference. Consider giving copies of it to any engineers, architects, and contractors who work on the project. You will need to submit a copy of this packet when you apply for land use and/or environmental permits. Pre-screening: When you have the project application ready for submittal, call and schedule an appointment with the project manager (planner) to have it pre- screened before making all of the required copies. The pre -application meeting is informal and non-binding. The comments provided on the proposal are based on the codes and policies in effect at the time of review. The applicant is cautioned that the development regulations are regularly amended and the proposal will be formally reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of project submittal. The information contained in this summary is subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Planning Director, Development Services Director, Department of Community and Economic Development Administrator, Public Works Administrator and City Council). R EI COEHI tVOE D Nov 16 2009 BUILDING DIVISION MEMORANDUM Dov 17 29119 RECEIVED DATE: TO. Construction Services, Economic Development, Eire Prevention, Plan Review, Project Planner FROM; Neil Watts, Development Services Division Director SUBJECT: New Preliminary Application: LOCATION: PREAPP NO, a cc, C, A meeting with the applicant has been scheduled forrk Thursday, at to; Oo { AM ❑pM, in one of the 61h floor conference rooms. if this meeting is scheduled at 10:00 AM, the MEETING MUST BE CONCLUDED PRIOR TO 11:00 AM to allow time to prepare for the 11.00 AM meeting. Please review the attached project plans prior to the scheduled meeting with the applicant. You viii not need to do a thorough "permit level" review at this time. Note only major issues that must be resolved prior to formal land use and/or building permit application submittal. Plan Reviewer assigned is Please submit your written comments to (Planner) at least two (2) days before the meeting. Thank you. H:;Division.s\Develop_ser\Dev & P1an.ingiTeinplatelPreapp2 Revised 1-45 �yo CITY OF RENTON d FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: November 24, 2009 TO: Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner FROM: Corey Thomas, Plans Review Inspector SUBJECT: Preliminary Comments for Walmart Expansion 1. The preliminary fire flow is 5,000 gpm. Five fire hydrants are required. One within 150 -feet and four within 300 -feet of the buildings. Any existing hydrants used to satisfy the requirements shall meet current fire code including 5 -inch storz fittings. No objections to proposed fire hydrant relocations. It appears adequate fire flow and fire hydrants already exist on site. 2. Fire mitigation fees are applicable at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of the additional commercial space. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. 3. Approved fire sprinkler systems are required throughout the building. Separate plans and permits required by the fire department. 4. An approved full detection, fully addressable automatic fire alarm system is required throughout the entire building, both new and existing. Separate plans and permits are required by the fire department. 5. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required within 150 -feet of all points on the building. Fire access roads are required to be a minimum of 20 -feet unobstructed width with turning radius of 25 -feet inside and 45 -feet outside minimum. Fire lane signage required for the on site roadways. 5. An electronic site plan is required prior to occupancy for pre -fire planning purposes. See attached sheet for the format in which to submit your plans. cr:ct walmart 0 Renton Fire Department PRE -FIRE PLANNING 0— In_ In an effort to streamline our pre -fire process, we are requesting that you submit a site plan of your construction project in one of the following formats which we can then convert to VISIO.vsd. This is required to be submitted prior to occupancy, ABC Flowcharter.aS ABC Flowcharter.aQ Adobe Illustrator File_ai AutoCad Drawin .dw Autocad DrawingAgn Cop22uter Gra hics Metafile.c m Corel Cli art Format.cmx Corel DRAW! Drawing File Format.edr Corel Flow.cfl Encapsulated Postscript File.e s Enhanced Metaiile.emf IGES Drawing File Format.i s Graphics Interchange Forrnat. if Macintosh PICT Format. ct Micro rafx Desi er Ver 3.1.drw Micrografx Designer Ver 6.0.dsf Microstation Drawing.dgn Portable Network Gra hics Format. of Postscript File. s Ta& Image File Format.tif Text.txt Text. csv VISIO.vsd Windows Bitma .bm Windows Bitma .dib Windows Metafile.wmf Zsoft PC Paintbrush Bitma cx DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC ti fl DEVELOPMENT M E M O R A N D U M DATE: November 18, 2009 TO: Rocale Timmons, Planner FROM: Kayren Kittrick, Development Engineering Supervisor �e SUBJECT: Utility and Transportation Comments Walmart Expansion Pre 09-066 Address: Rainier/Grady NOTE: The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary is preliminary and non-binding and may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official city decision -makers. Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes r"uired by City staff or made by the applicant. The following comments are based on the pre -application submittal made to the City of Renton by the applicant. WATER 1. The site is currently served by the Renton water utility. 2. There is an existing 12 -inch looped main on the site serving the existing building. 3. The project site is located in the 196 Water Pressure Zone. 4. Fire flow availability to the site is approximately 5600 gpm from the existing 12 -inch main with the controlling factor being the limit on velocity in mains to 8 feet/second. 5. The static water pressure is approximately 75 psi. 6. Five fire hydrants are required for this proposed building (1 within 150 ft. of building, 4 within 300 ft) and all hydrants counted towards service for this building require a 5" Storz adaptor (quick disconnect fitting). 7. Cross connection control is required on the downstream side of the domestic meter for buildings greater than 30 feet in freight. Additional regulations may apply. 8. In addition to the fire hydrant(s) a sprinkler/alarm system is required for the proposed development requiring a separate meter sized appropriately. 9. A Water System Development Charge is based on the size of water meter needed to service the development. Only triggered with a change in meter. 10. An additional fire service permit and fee is applicable for fire sprinkler supply connection. PRE 09-066 PR Comments SANITARY SEWER I. The building is currently served by a private on-site system connecting to a City of Renton line directly connected to the Metro line. 2, If a commercial unit is designated to serve food, a grease trap or interceptor meeting the approval of the Wastewater Utility is required. 3. A minimum 6 -inch side sewer connection to service the building is required. 4. The Sewer System Development Charge may be triggered and determined by any addition to the water meter size. SURFACE WATER 1. The site is located in the Black River drainage system and is currently connected to the existing system in S. 7th Street. 2. The property has an existing 12 -inch drainage system on-site which is proposed to be expanded and revised. A report and calculations showing the proposed site redevelopment does not trigger flow control standards must be submitted with the formal application. 3. A preliminary drainage plan addressing the redevelopment detention and water quality requirements in accordance with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual (or 2009 KCSWDM if adopted by the City of Renton by project submittal date) is required. 4. The Surface Water System Development Charge is based on $0.405 per square foot of new impervious surface area. TRANSPORTATION 1. Traffic mitigation fees apply at a rate of $75.00 per additional daily trip as calculated by the ITE manual for the expansion only. 2. Limited traffic study may be required if development generates less than 100 ADT per day. Turning movements and anticipated truck access with the proposed driveways may need review. GENERAL COMMENTS 1_ A construction permit will be required for all utility work. 2. Staff member assigned to contact for further questions and project review: Arneta Henninger, 425-430-7298. T DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AN 10); N� M E M O R A N D U BVI DATE: November 19, 2009 TO: Pre -Application Fife No, PRE 09-066 FROM. Rocale Timmons, Associate Planner {425) 430-7219 SUBJECT: Wal-Mart Expansion — SW Grady Way and Rainier Ave S General We have completed a preliminary review of the pre -application for the above -referenced development proposal. The following comments on development and permitting issues are based on the pre -application submittals made to the City of Renton by the opplicant and the codes in effect on the date of review, The applicant is cautioned that information contained in this summary may be subject to modification and/or concurrence by official decision -makers (e.g., Hearing Examiner, Community & Economic Development Administrator, Development Services Director, Public Works Administrator, and City Council). Review comments may also need to be revised based on site planning and other design changes required by City staff or made by the applicant. The applicant is encouraged to review all applicable sections of the Renton Municipal Code_ The Development Regulations are available for purchase for $50.00 plus tax, from the Finance Division on the first floor of City Hall or on the City's website www.rentonwa.gov Project Proposal The subject property is located on the west side of Rainier Ave 5 on the south side of SW Grady Way. The proposal includes the expansion of the existing 134,352 square foot Wal-Mart retail store to a total area of 150,244 square feet. Additions along the northern and eastern facades of the existing structure make up the approximately 16,000 square foot expansion. The proposal also includes an expansion of the surface parking lot in the amount of 3.1 acres which includes 165 parking stalls to be used by the retail store. The proposal includes the elimination of 7 existing parking stalls resulting in approximately 776 parking stalls to be provided on site. As part of the parking lot expansion the applicant is also proposing associated landscaping, pedestrian pathways and the use of two existing access points. The project site is located within the Commercial Arterial zoning designation and within Design District V_ In addition the applicant is proposing the subdivision of the two existing parcels into 3 lots whereby the Columbia Bank, Jimmy Mac's and the proposed Wal-Mart store would be located on separate lots. Access to the site is proposed via seven existing curb cuts along Rainier Ave S, Hardie Ave SW, SW 7"' St and SW Grady Way, Current Use: There is an existing 134,352 square foot structure, used by Wal-Mart, located on the eastern portion of the site that is proposed to remain. Zoning: The property is located within the Commercial Corridor (CC) land use designation and the Commercial Arterial (CA) zoning designation. Big -Box retail use is outright permitted within the CA zone_ The property is also located within urban Design District `D', and therefore subject to additional design elements Proposals should have unique, identifiable design treatment in terms of landscaping, building design, signage, street furniture, paving, and street width. Wal-Mart Expansion November 23, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Development Standards: The project would be subject to RMC 4-2-120A, "Development Standards for Commercial Zoning Designations" effective at the time of complete application (noted as "CA standards" herein). A copy of these standards is included herewith. Minimum Lot Size Width and Depth — The minimum lot size in the CA zone is 5,000 square feet. It appears that the three lots, after the short plat process, would comply with the minimum lot size requirement. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that there are at least two existing legal lots otherwise the applicant will be required to apply for a Short Plat or a Binding Site Plan. There are no minimum requirements for lot width or depth within the CA zone at this location. Lot Coverage — The CA zone allows a maximum building coverage of 65 percent, or 75 percent if parking is provided within a building or within an on-site parking garage. 150,244 square foot footprint is proposed on the 13 acre site resulting in a building lot coverage of approximately 27 percent. The project proposal appears to comply with lot coverage requirements_ Setbacks — Setbacks are the distance between the building and the property line or any private access easement. Setback requirements in the CA zone are as follows: 10 feet minimum for the front yard but may be reduced to zero feet through the site plan review process provided blank walls are not located within the reduced setback; and a 15 feet maximum front yard setback, There are no minimum rear or side yard setbacks required in the CA zone. The proposed Wal-Mart building does not comply with the maximum front yard setback requirement. However, as the situation is already existing and the proposed additions would bring the structure closer to conformity a variance would not be required. The Columbia Bank and Jimmy Mac's restaurant would comply would the setback requirements of the zone after the recording the short plat. Gross Floor Area — There is no minimum requirement for gross floor area. Building Height — Maximum building height in the CA zone is 50 feet or 60 feet for mixed-use building with commercial on the 1" floor. It appears the proposed structure would be a 1 -story building however compliance with the height requirements of the zone could not be verified as elevations were not provided with the pre -application materials. Building elevations and detailed descriptions of elements and building materials are required with your site plan review submittal. Screening — Screening must be provided for all surface -mounted and roof top utility and mechanical equipment. The site plan application will need to include elevations and details for the proposed methods of screening. Refuse and Recycling Areas — Refuse and recycling areas need to meet the requirements of RMC 4-4-090, "Refuse and Recyclables Standards" (enclosed)_ For retail developments a minimum of 5 square feet per every 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclable deposit areas and a minimum of 10 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas with a total minimum area of 100 square feet. Based on the proposal for the 155,244 square feet of retail building; a minimum area of 776 square feet of recyclables and 1,552 square feet of refuse area would be required. The location and size of the refuse and recyclable area could not be verified with the pre -application materials. Landscaping — Except for critical areas, all portions of the development area not covered by structures, required parking, access, circulation or service areas, must be landscaped with native, drought -resistant vegetative cover. The development standards require that all pervious areas within the property boundaries be landscaped. The minimum on-site landscape width required along street frontages is 10 feet, except where reduced through the site plan development review process. The applicant would be Wal-Mart Expansion November 23, 2009 Page 3 of 6 required to provide a minimum 10 foot landscape strip along Rainier Ave South, Hardie Ave SW and SW 7`h Street or request to reduce the landscaping as part of the application for site plan review. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed)- It appears that the proposal complies with the development standards in the CA zone for landscaping. However, please refer to the Design District Guidelines for additional landscaping requirements. A conceptual landscape plan and landscape analysis meeting the requirements in RMC 4- 8-120D.12, shall be submitted at the time of application for Site Alan Review. Tree Preservation — A tree inventory and a tree retention plan along with a tree retention worksheet shall be provided with the formal land use application. The tree retention plan must show preservation of at least 5 percent of significant trees, and indicate how proposed parking would be sited to accommodate preservation of significant trees that would be retained. If the trees cannot be retained, they may be replaced with minimum 2 inch caliper trees at a rate of six to one. Fences — If the applicant intends to install any fences as part of this project, the location must be designated on the landscape plan. A fence detail should also be included on the pian as well. Parking — The following ratios would be applicable to the site: Use Square Footag ofB1CiQ3 Ratio Required Spaces Big Box Retail 150,244 Min: 4 spaces / 1,000 5F Max: 5 spaces / 1,000 SF Min: 601 Max: 751 Information regarding the net square footage of the proposed building was not provided; therefore the numbers provided for required spaces are likely to be higher than the parking spaces required/allowed for the proposal. Net square footage is the total of all floor area of a building, excluding stairwells, elevator shafts, mechanical equipment rooms, interior vehicular parking or loading, and all floors below the ground floor, except when used for human habitation or service to the public. The applicant is proposing a total of 776 parking stalls which exceeds the number of parking stalls allowed by Code even with the use of gross square footage. Where practical difficulties exist in meeting parking requirements, the applicant may request a modification from these standards. The applicant will be required at the time of formal land use application to provide detailed parking information (i.e. stall and drive aisle dimensions) and calculations of the subject site and the overall campus use. However, due to the shortage of proposed landscaping on site, it would be challenging for staff to grant a modification to exceed the number of stalls. It should be noted that the parking regulations specify standard stall dimensions of 9 feet x 20 feet, compact dimensions of 8Y2 feet x 16 feet, and parallel stall dimensions of 9 feet x 23 feet. ADA accessible stalls must be a minimum of 8 feet in width by 20 feet in length, with an adjacent access aisle of 8 feet in width for van accessible spaces. Those stalls that do not meet the stall dimension standard are existing and as the proposal does not increase their non -conformity a parking modification would not be necessary for them to remain as is. The appropriate amount of ADA accessible stalls, based on the total number of spaces, must be provided. If 776 stalls are provided a total of 16 ADA accessible stalls would be required. Parking lots shall also be oriented to minimize their visual impact on the site. No more than six stalls may be consecutively clustered without an intervening landscaped area a minimum of jive feet in width and the length of the stall. The proposal should be revised to depict intervening landscaping, every six stalls, within the new parking areas. Otherwise, the applicant would be required to apply for and have granted a parking modification. If additional landscaping was sited to buffer the surface parking on the exterior of the site a modification for intervening landscaping would be considered. Wal-Mart Exparsicr November 23, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Finally, surface parking lots with more than 100 stalls shall also provide a minimum of 35 square feet per parking space. Therefore 27,160 square feet of landscaping would be required on-site. It appears the applicant is proposing a total of 26,134 square feet of landscaping. The proposal should be revised to include additional landscaping areas. Otherwise, the applicant would be required to apply for and have granted a parking modification. However, due to the excess of parking on site, it would be challenging to grant a modification. Please refer to landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-D70 and RMC 4-4-080F.7) for further general and specific landscape requirements (enclosed). The applicant will be required to provide a Parking, Lot Coverage, Landscaping Analysis as defined in RMC 4-8-120.D.16 for the site. Access — Driveway widths are limited by the driveway standards, in RMC 4-4D$0l. Pedestrian Access — A pedestrian connection shall be provided from a public entrance to the street, in order to provide direct, clear and separate pedestrian walks from sidewalks to building entries and internally from buildings to abutting retail properties. The site plan provided did not depict pedestrian connections. It appears that the proposal complies with the development standards in the CA zone for Pedestrian Access. However, please refer to the Design District Guidelines for additional pedestrian access requirements. Signage — Only one freestanding business sign (restricted to monument/ground signs only) is permitted per street frontage, however pole signs are not permitted within the CA zone. However, the applicant would be able to retain the existing legal non -conforming sign as is. Each new sign shall not exceed an area greater than one and one-half square feet for each lineal foot of property frontage that is occupied by the business and shall be restricted to monument/ground signs only. In no case shall the sign exceed a total of 300 square feet (150 square feet per face). in addition to the permitted freestanding sign, wall signs with a copy area not exceeding 20% of the fagade, to which it is applied, are also permitted. Building Design Standards — Compliance with Urban Design Regulations, District 'D; is required. See the attached checklist and Renton Municipal Code section 4-3-100. The following bullets are a few of the standards outlined in the regulations which are required to be incorporated into the site design as proposed. See RMC 4-3-100 and the attached checklist for all applicable standards and guidelines. • Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. • All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Wal-Mart Expansion November 23, 2009 Page 5 of 6 Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials Landscaping • Surface parking areas shall he screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-0801-7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). • Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root bail) respectively. • A parking stall is not located more than 50 feet from a landscape area. • All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula: 11 of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian -oriented space • To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures f rom the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. • All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40')_ • Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. • Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. • Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; (d) Pitched or sloped roofs. • Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Wal-Mart Expansion November 23, 2009 Page 6 of 6 Critical Areas There appears to be no critical areas on site. If there is any indication of critical areas on the site, this must be disclosed to the City prior to development and appropriate studies must be undertaken. Environmental Review The proposed project would be subject to Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the proposed project exceeds several thresholds. Therefore, an environmental checklist is a submittal requirement, An environmental determination will be made by the Renton Environmental Review Committee. This determination is subject to appeal by either the project proponent, by a citizen of the community, or another entity having standing for an appeal. Permit Requirements The proposal would require Hearing Examiner Site Plan Review, Environmental (SEPA) Review and Short Plat approval. The applications could be reviewed concurrently in an estimated time frame of 12 weeks once a complete application is accepted. The Site Pian Review application fee is $2,000. The application fee for SEPA Review (Environmental Checklist) is $1,400. The application fee for Short Plat would be an additional $1,400. Detailed information regarding the land use application submittal is provided in the attached handouts. In addition to the required land use permits, separate construction, building and sign permits would be required. The review of these permits may occur concurrently with the review of the land use permits, but cannot be issued prior to the completion of any appeal periods. Impact Mitigation Fees: in addition to the applicable building and construction fees, the following mitigation fees would be required prior to the issuance of building permits. ♦ A Transportation Mitigation Fee based on $75.00 per new daily trip attributed to the development; + A Fire Mitigation Fee based on $0.52 per square foot of new commercial building area. Expiration: Upon site plan approval, the site plan approval is valid for two years with a possible two-year extension. Upon preliminary short plat approval, the preliminary short plat approval is valid for two years with a possible one-year extension. A handout listing all of the City's Development related fees in attached for your review. 171 PROJECT NARRATIVE Walmart Site Plan Review Renton, King County, Washington Project Description 10 City of Renton PIPTinina Division FFa - s '00 HEMMED MED This project proposes to expand the existing Walmart store, which is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. The expansion would increase the building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed expansion areas are located on the northern and eastern faces of the existing building. Additional parking will be provided for a total of approximately 745 stalls. In addition, the total area leased by Walmart is proposed to increase from 9.9 acres to a total of 13.65 acres. The Walmart store will be located on Lot 1 of the proposed Walmart Short Plat along with the vacant Billy McHale's, which is proposed to be demolished. The existing bank will be situated on its own lot (Lot 2 of the proposed Walmart Short Plat), as will the existing Jimmy Mac's restaurant (Lot 3 of the proposed Walmart Short Plat). Permits This project will require the following permits: • City of Renton SEPA Determination • City of Renton Short Plat Review • City of Renton Short Plat Recording • City of Renton Site Plan Review • City of Benton Building Permit • Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit • Sewer Permit • Water Permit • City of Renton Right -of -Way Permit(s) (as needed) Short Plat (submitted for Short Plat Review on 12/3012009) The proposed Short Plat will create three new lots. The existing Parcels 1 and 2 will become proposed Lots 1, 2, and 3. Lot 1 will be 13.65 acres and will contain the existing Walmart store and expansion. The vacant Billy McHale's restaurant would be demolished prior to construction of the expansion. A Parking and Landscape Analysis has been completed for Lot 1 under the expanded conditions. Buildings The existing Walmart consists of an approximately 134,000 square feet building as well as a 9,000 square foot Garden Center. The expansion proposes to increase the building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000 square feet. Site The project site (including all access locations) consists of several parcels, which include CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Industrial Medium) zoning. No re -zoning is proposed. Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion Renton, Washington February &, 2010 0 9 The Comprehensive Plan designations include CC (Commercial Corridor) and EAV (Employment Area Valley). Current uses include a bank to the north, retail and restaurants to the northeast and east, and a car dealership to the south and west. The site does not contain any wetlands, water features, or steep slopes. Parking The existing parking stalls on-site are 9'x18', which does not meet the current City of Renton Code of 9'x20'. By maintaining the existing dimensions, we are able to retain most existing landscape islands with mature trees and avoid significant changes to the existing drive aisles. New parking areas will contain 9'x20' stalls. The proposed parking ratio is 5.0/1,000sf of building area, which is in compliance with the City or Renton's maximum parking ratio for big -box retail stores. Soils The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from loose to very dense. Grading on the project site will be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities will be approximately 9,500 CY of fill and 9,500 CY of haul -out. Utility Infrastructure The existing Walmart site is served by public water and sewer through the City of Renton. These services will be extended and relocated as necessary on-site to accommodate the proposed store expansion. Services to the existing restaurant to be demolished will be removed or abandoned in place. Existing on-site stormwater runoff from the roof and paved surfaces will continue to be collected and conveyed via a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and underground detention/conveyance pipes. Runoff is conveyed to the existing biofiltration swale, located northeast of the store, for water quality treatment or directly to the City stormwater system in SW Seventh Street. An area equivalent to the new pollution generating impervious surfaces will be routed to the proposed bioswale, located north of the expansion area for water quality treatment. The treated runoff will then be conveyed to the existing bioswale, and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system. Power and gas are provided by Puget Sound Energy and phone services are provided by Qwest West. Site Lighting The existing site lighting consists of forty (40) foot lights, which are non-compliant with current City of Renton Code. However, in order to maintain consistency with the existing lighting, on the Walmart parcel as well as the surrounding lots, the proposed lights will also be forty (40) feet in height. Approximately three new light poles with fixtures will be needed in the expansion area. Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion Renton, Washington February 8, 2010 As requested by the City, decorative pedestrian lighting will be added along the pedestrian connection in front of the store. Approximately three 12-14' pedestrian lights are proposed. Access Access to the site is provided from SW Seventh Street (three full accesses) to the north, Hardie Ave SW (full access) to the east, Rainier Avenue (right-in/right-out access) to the east and SW Grady Way (full access) to the south. All access points will be shown and identified on the Site Plan. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been completed and the results show no significant impacts due to the proposed project. Landscape Design The proposed landscape areas exceed the 35 sf per stall requirement, and the layout is focused primarily on retaining the existing mature trees (greater than 6" in diameter). In order to accomplish this, the existing location and spacing of the landscape islands had to be maintained where possible. However, the widths of most islands were increased. In addition, the project proposes to add perimeter landscaping along the SW Seventh Street and Hardie Avenue frontages. Approximately 15 mature trees will need to be removed as a result of the proposed improvements. The sizes and types are as follows. • Nine six-inch deciduous trees. • Three six-inch coniferous trees. • Two eight -inch coniferous trees. • One twelve -inch coniferous tree. This represents approximately 15% of the total existing mature trees on-site. See the Tree Inventory Plan (TI -1) for locations of trees to be retained and removed. Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion Renton, Washington February 8, 2010 City of Renton UJI.Y "' - -T �' ,,Ar, irtq Dtvtston TREE RETENTION WORKSHEET 1. Total number of trees over 6" in diameter' on project site: 1. 99 trees 2. Deductions: Certain trees are excluded from the retention calculation: Trees that are dead, diseased or dangerous2 0 trees Trees in proposed public streets 0 trees Trees in proposed private access easements/tracts 0 trees Trees in critical area S3 and buffers 0 trees Total number of excluded trees: 2. 0 trees 3. Subtract line 2 from line 1: 3. 99 trees 4. Next, to determine the number of trees that must be retained4, multiply line 3 by: 0.3 in zones RC, R-1, R-4, or R-8 0.1 in all other residential zones 0.05 in all commercial and industrial zones 4. 5 trees 5. List the number of 6" or larger trees that you are proposing5 to retain 4: 5. 84 trees 6. Subtract line 5 from line 4 for trees to be replaced: 6. (If line 6 is less than zero, stop here. No replacement trees are required). 7. Multiply line 6 by 12" for number of required replacement inches: 7. 8. Proposed size of trees to meet additional planting requirement: (Minimum 2" caliper trees required) 8. 9. Divide line 7 by line 8 for number of replacement trees6: (if remainder is .5 or greater, round up to the next whole number) M ' Measured at chest height. trees inches inches per tree trees 2 Dead, diseased or dangerous trees must be certified as such by a forester, registered landscape architect, or certified arborist, and approved by the City. Critical Areas, such as wetlands, streams, floodplains and protected slopes. are defined in Section 4-3-050 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC). 4. Count only those trees to be retained outside of critical areas and buffers. The City may require modification of the tree retention plan to ensure retention of the maximum number of trees per RMC 4-4-1301-17a e. Inches of street trees, inches of trees added to critical areas/buffers, and inches of trees retained on site that are less than 6" but are greater than 2" can be used to meet the tree replacement requirement. 5:'t4'ashingtrnr,Rcutnnl�rimcsiRainicr Ave & 7th Fxpansion,4RcportsTennit hemsUree Retention Worksheet.doc 12108 #2516-05; Renton Walmart Expansion Site Plan Review - Landscape/Parking Analysis Site Areas Area Existing Parcel 1 Lease Area 9.9 acres Proposed Lot 1 Lease Area 13.6 acres Lot Analysis (existing) Gross Lot Square Footage 594,553 sf Access Easement Square Footage 19,171 sf Net Lot Square Footage 575,382 sf Existing Impervious Surface 515,257 sf Existing Undeveloped Area 29,688 sf Existing Building Square Footage 140,896 sf Existing Garden Center Square Footage 9,186 sf % of Lot Covered by Existing Building(s) 23.70% Area of Existing Pavement 347,205 sf Area of Existing Sidewalk 17,032 sf Total Area of Existing Landscaping 50,546 sf Proposed Impervious Surface 528,863 sf Proposed Undeveloped Area 0 sf Proposed Building Demo Area 6,547 sf Proposed Building Square Footage 150,244 sf Proposed Garden Center Square Footage 4701 sf % of Lot Covered by Proposed Building(s) 25.30% Area of Proposed Pavement 344,001 sf Area of Proposed Sidewalk 29,917 sf Total Area of Proposed Landscaping 65,690 sf Parking Analysis Minimum Stalls Permitted (4.011,000 so 601 Maximum Stalls Permitted (5.0!1,000 sf) 751 Number of Parking Stalls Provided 745 Number of ADA Stalls Required 15 Number of ADA Stalls Provided 19 Parking Stall Counts are Compliant Yes Parking Stall Dimensions (in existing areas) 9' x 18' Parking Stall Dimensions (in new areas) 9' x 20' *Compact Parking Stall Dimensions 8.5' x 16' * 2' of Additional Overhang City of Renton ;--'tanning Division FEB - 8 201 ALeXEMED . C'ty of Renton planning Division CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Walmart Site Plan Review Renton, King County, Washington Proposed Construction Dates FED - S 2018 [ CEQVED This project proposes to expand the existing Walmart store, which is located at 743 Rainier Avenue South, in Renton, Washington. The expansion would increase the building by approximately 16,000 square feet and decrease the Garden Center by approximately 4,000 square feet. Construction of the store expansion is proposed to begin in late Winter 2011 with completion in Winter 2013. Hours and Days of Operation Proposed construction hours and days will comply with the City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-4-030. These hours include Monday — Friday 7:00am — 8:00pm, Saturday 9:00am — 8:00pm, and no work on Sundays. Haul hours will be Monday — Friday between 8:30am — 3:30pm. If special construction or haul hours will be necessary, approval by the Development Services Division will be requested ahead of time. Proposed Hauling/Transportation Routes The primary haul route onto the project site will be via SW Seventh Street, north of the existing Walmart store. Measures to Reduce Impacts This project will utilize erosion control measures and BMPs to minimize the effects of dust and erosion during demolition and construction. In order to minimize transportation impacts, traffic control measures such as flaggers and signage will be utilized. Construction and hauling will take place during regular business hours, so noise will not be an issue. Special Hours The project does not propose construction or hauling during special hours. Preliminary Traffic Control Plan The proposed expansion will utilize flaggers and traffic control signage in order to minimize the impacts on localized traffic. Walmart Store #2516-05 Expansion Denton, Washington January 28, 2010 I 0 PLANNING DIVISION 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTN� City of Renton Planning Division 1055 South Grady Way -Renton, WA 98057 Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231. PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: pFitk Of poiv,,316- I or, The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.210 RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is Lo provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide vlhether an EIS is required. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: 'his environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, Lvdith the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In cnost cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project pians without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as toning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. USE OF CHECKLIST FOR NONPROJECT PROPOSALS: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For nonproject actions (actions involving decisions on policies, plans and programs), the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. - 1 - 06108 S:1Wash"ionlRenlonlgrimes4Rainier Ave & 7th ExpansienWRepoft%EnliUementlSEPA11F251"5 SEPA Checklist 2008-12-15.dot 0 A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Walmart #2516-05; Renton Expansion 2. Name of applicant: Bonnell Family, LLC and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. c/o PACLAND — Seattle 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Jeff Chambers, P.E. 1505 Westlake Ave. N. Suite 305 Seattle, WA 98109 (206) 522-9510 4. Date checklist prepared: October 28, 2009 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): This project represents an expansion of the existing Walmart store #2516-05. Project access and infrastructure will be constructed upon permit issuance. Timing and phasing will be dependent on market conditions. Estimated Construction Start: 2011 Estimated Project Completion: 2013 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. This project represents an expansion of the existing Walmart store #2516-05. This includes parking lot and drive aisle changes made necessary by the shopping center layout. Access locations will remain the same unless changes are required by The City of Renton. S. List; any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ■ Traffic Impact Analysis; prepared byTranspo Group • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment; prepared by Terracon • Phase If Environmental Site Assessment; to be prepared by Terracon • Wetland/Biology Assessment; prepared by The Watershed Company • Storm Water Management Report; prepared by PACLAND • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; to be prepared by PACLAND - 2 - asro9 5.1WashingtonlRenton{grimesftinier Ave $ 7th ExpansionWReporls%EnlidementlSEPAW2516.05 SEPA checklist 2009-12-75.doc 0 0 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None. 10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • City of Renton SEPA Determination • City of Renton Short Plat Review • City of Renton Short Plat Recording • City of Renton Site Plan Review • City of Renton Building Permit • Washington State Department of Ecology NPDES Permit • Sewer Permit + Water Permit + City of Renton Right -of -Way Permit(s) * King County Health Department • King County Sewer Treatment These permits will require approval by the City of Renton Planning Division, King County, or the Department of Ecology. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This project proposes an approximate 16,000 SF expansion of the existing Walmart store, to an approximate total size of 150,500 sf. The garden center will be reduced by approximately 4,000 square feet to a new total of approximately 5,000 square feet. Additional parking and landscaping will also be constructed on the project site. The existing lease area under ownership of Bonnell Family LLC will be increased in size from approximately 10 acres to approximately 13.6 -acres. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if known. if a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. 743 Rainier Avenue South, Renton, King County, Washington. NW Quarter of Section 16, Township 23 N, Range 5 E. .3- 06109 S:LWashinglonlRenionlgrimesMRainier Ave $ 7th Expansions 4ReportslEnUtlemenASEPA19251505 SEPA Checkllsl2009-12-15.doe B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat (Existing shopping center with parking). b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Average slope across the site is approximately 3%. The steepest slope in a landscape area is approximately 20%. C. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. The site consists of native fine-grained soils which are generally soft to soft to medium stiff and compressible, and native granular soils which range from loose to very dense. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? if so, describe. Site is underlain by soft to medium stiff silts, Soils will compact under static loads; building foundation and columns may be supported by special foundations if further geotechnical investigations require such a design. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading on the project site will be minimal and limited to the north and east sides of the existing store. Earthwork quantities will be approximately 9500 CY of fill and 9500 CY of haul -out. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Temporary erosion could occur prior to site stabilization. However, temporary erosion control BMR measures will be implemented to minimize short term construction impacts in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology standards. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 95%. WE S:1WashingtonlRentonlgrimeslRainier Ave & 7th ExpansionWReponsl£nlillemen145EPAW2516-05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.dOC 06!09 h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion could occur prior to site stabilization. However, temporary erosion control BMP measures will be implemented to minimize short term construction impacts in accordance with the City of Renton and Department of Ecology standards. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Dust and vehicle emissions may occur during construction. Vehicle emissions from visiting customers will occur both during and after construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Site will be sprinkled with water during construction as necessary to control dust. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. if appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. No. Existing stormwater treatment system had seasonal water. 2) Will the project require any work over, in; or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and Indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. - s - 06/09 Szl WashtnglonlRenton4grimes%Rainier Ave & 71h F-xpensionWReportslEnliltementlSEPA1#2516-05 SEPA Checkllsl 2009-12-15.doe 0 0 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. S) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year flood plain? if so, note location on the site plan. The project is located in Zone X, which is outside the 100 -year flood plain. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater is anticipated to be withdrawn. Stormwater runoff will be collected and conveyed by a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and underground pipe to biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for water quality treatment. System discharges to City of Renton storm system. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. None. C. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters, If so, describe. The source of runoff from the site is rainfall. On-site stormwater runoff from the roof and paved surfaces will be collected and conveyed by a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and underground detention/conveyance pipes to biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for water quality treatment and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system. 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. - 6 - 06/09 S:1WashinglonlRentonlgrimeslRatnier Ave & 71h ExpansionWReporlsTrLVtlemenLL$EPA1#2516.05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.doc d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The source of runoff from the site is rainfall. On-site stormwater runoff from the roof and paved surfaces will be collected and conveyed by a system of curb, gutter, catch basins and underground detention/conveyance pipes to biofiltration swales or organic cartridge systems for water quality treatment and subsequently into the City of Renton storm system. L19�7T11 V a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs ---Xgrass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing landscape islands may be relocated or added in order to meet the City and Client landscaping spacing requirements. C. list threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known at this time. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Proposed development will be landscaped in accordance with the City of Renton requirements. S. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other songbirds Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other None known. Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other None known.— b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain None known. - 7 - 06109 S:kWashinptonlRentontOmeslRainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4ReponslEnOdemeni SEPAW2516-05 SEPA Checktisi 2009-I2-15.tloc d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Landscaped areas will be enhanced. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Currently the store utilizes electric power and natural gas for site illumination, interior building lighting, air conditioning, space heating and water heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No impact anticipated. C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: This project will utilize the most energy-efficient mechanical systems practical and will comply with Washington State Non -Residential Energy Code. 7, ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. This project will meet all applicable health and safety standards. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Project will utilize typical emergency services (Fire, Police, Ambulance). 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: N/A b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from the adjacent roadways and operational noise from typical commercial/industrial activities in the area. S:1Washington4RenlonlgnmesRainier Ave & 7th EzpensionWReporkslEnGtlemen(kSEPA1#2516-05 SEPA CWklisl 2009-12-15.doc 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term construction noise will be created during construction. Long term noise from customer vehicles, mechanical equipment, and freight unloading at variable hours. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Project will utilize mechanical equipment to meet applicable City and State noise standards. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The project site currently consists of the existing Walmart store and various other commercial/retail buildings. Adjacent uses include Commercial to the north, east, and south and Industrial/Commercial to the west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. C. Describe any structures on the site. Existing 134,352 square foot Walmart store, two restaurants, fuel station with convenience store, bank, strip mail, and auto dealership. Adjacent uses include commercial, office, and retail. d. Will any structures be demolished? if so, what? Yes, the existing Walmart store will have demolition activities for the expansion area and adjacent uses may be altered/demolished as part of the proposal. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning is CA (Commercial Arterial) and IM (Industrial Medium). f, What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is CC (Commercial Corridor) and EAV (Employment Area Valley). g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A W*11 S.1WashinglonlRenlonlgrimes%Rainier Ave & 71h ExpansionWRepomkrzmilllementiSEPAW251"5 SEPA Checklist 2609-12-16.doc 06109 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? if so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? It is estimated that approximately 85 new and 300 existing full/part-time employees will be working in the building. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Approximately 30-40 employees. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: There are no planned measures to avoid or reduce possible displacement impacts to the existing retail/restaurants. However, approximately 85 additional Walmart jobs will be created as a result of the proposed project. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Development will be consistent with zoning requirements. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None. C, Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: N/A 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The building will be approximately 35 feet with signage approximately 60 feet as it currently exists. _10- M09 S.1WashingtonlRentonVrirrreslRainier Ave & 7th ExpansionAReportslEnUilementLSEPAI#2516-05 SEPA Checklist 200-12.15,doc b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The building will be expanded to the north utilizing an existing gravel pad. The appearance of the existing building will be enhanced. The development will include new landscaping and amenities not present in the site's existing condition. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project has been designed to include enhancements to the building architecture, site amenities, and new parking lot landscaping. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot lighting will remain similar to the existing conditions. Parking lot lighting will occur primarily at night time. Vehicle lights will occur during evening hours. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Project lighting will be designed to reduce glare while creating a safe level of lighting. C, What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site light and glare from roadways and surrounding commercial buildings will not affect this project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: A Lighting Photometric Plan will be developed that minimizes the project - generated light encroachment on adjacent properties. Project lighting will be designed to provide a safe level of lighting in parking lot and around the building. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Unknown. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: - 11 . 06109 S:1WashingtonLRentonlgrimes\Rainier Ave & 7th ExpansionWReports%Enlitlemen[%SEPAW2516-05 SEPA Checklist 209-12-15.doc Project will enhance site amenities and walk -ways. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None known. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None known. C, Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site is provided by SW Seventh Street (three full accesses) to the north, Hardie Ave SW (full access) to the east, Rainier Avenue (right-in/right- out access) to the east and SW Grady Way (full access) to the south. All entrances will be shown and identified on the Site Plan. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is served by multiple King County Metra Transit routes. C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? It is estimated, at this time, that the project will have approximately 775 parking stalls. This is an increase from the existing condition, so no stalls are being eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? if so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private? None anticipated at this time. The permitting process could identify public improvements. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. -12- 06/09 S:lWashingtonlRentonlgrimesCainier Ave & 7th Expansionl4ReportstEnbUementlSEPAW2516-05 SEPA Ghecklisl2009-12-15AOc 9 0 How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The store expansion, with grocery, will generate an additional 608 Daily trips (53 PM Peak Hour trips) per the ITE 8th Edition. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No measures are planned at this time; however, the permitting process could identify improvements to the public roadway system. is. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b, Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. UTILITIES Circle utilities currently available at the site: Electricity, natural gas, water. refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other, b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The expansion will require an additional sanitary side sewer line to the store. All other existing utilities are proposed to remain and/or be relocated to accommodate the building expansion. C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true, correct, and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of noxi -significance that it might issue in r ante upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentatio e u ack ful( discWu on my part. Proponent Signature' Name Printed: L 67a-{! 65!f ,4�. _ Date: 716 -13- 06/08 S:1WashinglonlRenlonlg6meslRainierAve & 71h I xpansiorYVReporislEntUementtiSEPAW251&05 SEPA Checklist 2009-12-15.tloc PLANNING DIVISION DESIGN DISTRICT "D" CHECKLIST City of Renton Planning Division C+tY Of Renton 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Panning Division Phone: 425-430-7200 Fax: 425-430-7231 PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST: FEB - S ?QiQ Ensure compliance with design review regulations located in the Renton Municipal Coi�ECEQ V ED order to: �3 a. Maintain and protect property values; b. Enhance the general appearance of the City; c. Encourage creativity in building and site design; d. Achieve predictability, balanced with flexibility; and e. Consider the individual merits of proposals. INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS: This design district checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City will use this checklist to determine whether the your proposal complies with the Urban Design Regulations in the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-100). Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. There are two categories that have been established: (a) "minimum standards" that must be met, and (b) "guidelines" that, while not mandatory, are considered by the Planning Director in determining if the proposed action meets the intent of the design guidelines. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. A. SITE DESIGN AND BUILDING LOCATION: Intent: To ensure that buildings are located in relation to streets and other buildings so that the Vision of the City of Renton can be realized for a high-density urban environment; so that businesses enjoy visibility from public rights-of-way; and to encourage pedestrian activity throughout the district. 1. Site Design and Street Pattern: Intent: To ensure that the City of Renton Vision can be realized within the Urban Center Districts; plan districts that are organized for efficiency while maintaining flexibility for future development at high urban densities and intensities of use; create and maintain a safe, convenient network of streets of varying dimensions for vehicle circulation; and provide service to businesses. Page 1 of 35 Minimum Standard: Provide a network of public and/or private local streets in addition to public arterials. The site is situated between public arterials on the northern, eastern and southern property lines and contains seven (7) access points. Minimum Standard: Maintain a hierarchy of streets to provide organized circulation that promotes use by multiple transportation modes and to avoid overburdening the roadway system. The hierarchy shall consist of (from greatest in size to smallest): (a) High Visibility Street. A highly visible arterial street that warrants special design treatment to improve its appearance and maintain its transportation function. (b) Arterial Street. A street classified as a principal arterial on the City's Arterial Street Plan. (c) Pedestrian -Oriented Streets. Streets that are intended to feature a concentration of pedestrian activity. Such streets feature slow moving traffic, narrow travel lanes, on -street parking, and wide sidewalks. (d) Internal or local roads (public or private). The site contains private internal roads closest to the store which connect to public arterials on the north, east, and south sides of the site. 2. Building Location and Orientation: Intent: To ensure visibility of businesses; establish active, lively uses along sidewalks and pedestrian pathways; organize buildings in such a way that pedestrian use of the district is facilitated; encourage siting of structures so that natural light and solar access are available to other structures and open space; enhance the visual character and definition of streets within the district; provide an appropriate transition between buildings, parking areas, and other land uses and the street; and increase privacy for residential uses located near the street. Minimum Standard: Orient buildings to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. The building orientation will remain the same, with the entrance facing the east towards the parking lot. There are clear connections between the pedestrian walkway and the store entrance. Minimum Standard: The front entry of a building shall not be oriented to a drive aisle, but instead a public or private street or landscaped pedestrian -only courtyard. Page 2 of 35 The existing store is oriented toward a drive aisle and will maintain this orientation in the proposed conditions. Guideline: Ground floor residential uses located near the street should be raised above street level for residents' privacy. Not Applicable. 3. Building Entries: Intent: To make building entrances convenient to locate and easy to access, and ensure that building entries further the pedestrian nature of the fronting sidewalk and the urban character of the district. Minimum Standard: A primary entrance of each building shall be located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human -scale elements. The primary entrance is visible from the street and includes a walkway to the public sidewalk on Rainier Avenue South. The walkway will contain human -scale elements such as decorative pedestrian lighting. The orientation of the entrance will remain the same. A second walkway is proposed north of the store, connecting to the public sidewalk on SW Seventh Street. Minimum Standard: Multiple buildings on the same site shall provide a continuous network of pedestrian paths and open spaces that incorporate landscaping to provide a directed view to building entries. There are buildings on adjacent sites, but not other buildings are proposed on the project site. There are proposed pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks on both Rainier Avenue South and SW Seventh Street. Minimum Standard: Ground floor units shall be directly accessible from the street or an open space such as a courtyard or garden that is accessible from the street. Not Applicable. Page 3 of 35 Minimum Standard: Secondary access (not fronting on a street) shall have weather protection at least 4-1/2 feet wide over the entrance or other similar indicator of access. There is no secondary access to the building for customers or the general public. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian access shall be provided to the building from property edges, adjacent lots, abutting street intersections, crosswalks, and transit stops. Pedestrian access will be provided from the store to the public sidewalk on Rainier Avenue South as well as the public sidewalk on SW Seventh Street. The Metro Transit stop is located on SW Seventh Street. The project site does not abut any street intersections. Guideline Standard: For projects that include residential uses, entries should provide transition space between the public street and the private residence such as a porch, landscaped area, terrace, common area, lobby, or similar feature. Not Applicable. Guideline Standard: Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows should be oriented to a street; otherwise, screening or art features such as trellises, artwork, murals, landscaping, or combinations thereof should be incorporated into the street -oriented facade. The front entry is oriented towards the parking lot and street. Due to the existing layout of the building, other elevations are not oriented towards streets. There are buildings/businesses in between the right and left elevations and the rear elevation is not street facing Guideline Standard: Entries from the street should be clearly marked with canopies, architectural elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping. Entries from parking lots should be subordinate to those related to the street for buildings within District W. Entries from the street are delineated with perimeter landscaping. Page 4 of 35 0 0 4. Transition to Surrounding Development: Intent: To shape redevelopment projects so that the character and value of Renton's long- established, existing neighborhoods are preserved. Minimum Standard: Careful siting and design treatment are necessary to achieve a compatible transition where new buildings differ from surrounding development in terms of building height, bulk and scale. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: a. Setbacks at the side or rear of a building may be increased by the Reviewing Official in order to reduce the bulk and scale of larger buildings and so that sunlight reaches adjacent yards; b. Building proportions, including step -backs on upper levels; c. Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or d. Roof lines, roof pitches, and roof shapes designed to reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. The proposed building design includes varying roof heights, material, and roof shapes along the front fagade in order to break up the larger architectural elements into smaller increments. 5. Service Element Location and Design: Intent: To reduce the potential negative impacts of service elements (i.e., waste receptacles, loading docks) by locating service and loading areas away from high-volume pedestrian areas, and screening them from view in high visibility areas. Minimum Standard: Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where they are accessible to service vehicles and convenient for tenant use (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7e). All service elements are located behind the store or north of the expansion area, away from the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Garbage, recycling collection, and utility areas shall be enclosed, consistent with RMC 4-4-090, Refuse and Recyclables Standards, and RMC 4-4-095, Screening and Storage Height/Location Limitations. Page 5 of 35 Recycling will be located in the 90'x12' bale and pallet area north of the expansion area. The recycling area required is 752 sf and the project proposes 1,080 sf. Refuse is located in the compactor next to the loading dock. Because the size of the compactor does not meet the minimum refuse area of 1,503 sf, a modification will be required. Minimum Standard: In addition to standard enclosure requirements, 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 (see illustration, RMC 4-3-100E7f). All garbage and recycling areas will be enclosed on all sides. details will be provided on architect's plans in future submittals. Minimum Standard: The use of chain link, plastic, or wire fencing is prohibited. No chain link, plastic, or wire fencing will be used to enclose service areas. Minimum Standard: If the service area is adjacent to a street, pathway, or pedestrian - oriented space, a landscaped planting strip, minimum 3 feet wide, shall be located on 3 sides of such facility. The recycling area (bale and pallet) is located north of the store near the proposed bioswale. The bale and pallet area is not adjacent to a street or pedestrian oriented space; however, the 90'x12' enclosed space is surrounded by at least 3' of landscaping on three sides. Guideline: Service enclosure fences should be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. The service enclosure fence will be made of masonry, ornamental metal or wood, or some combination of the three. 6. Gateways: Intent: To distinguish gateways as primary entrances to districts or to the City; provide special design features and architectural elements at gateways; and ensure that gateways, while they Page 6 of 35 are distinctive within the context of the district, are compatible with the district in form and scale. Minimum Standard: Developments located at district gateways shall be marked with visually prominent features (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7g). The proposed building frontage will have distinctive use of materials and canopies as visually prominent features. Minimum Standard: Gateway elements shall be oriented toward and scaled for both pedestrians and vehicles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.E7h). The proposed expansion will contain elements that are oriented toward and scaled for both cars and pedestrians. These elements include plaza areas, decorative pedestrian lighting, canopies, and landscaping. Minimum Standard: Visual prominence shall be distinguished by two or more of the following: a. Public art; b. Monuments; c. Special landscape treatment; d. Open space/plaza; e. Identifying building form; f. Special paving, unique pedestrian scale lighting, or bollards; g. Prominent architectural features (trellis, arbor, pergola, or gazebo); h. Signage, displaying neighborhood or district entry identification (commercial signs are not allowed). The property will incorporate visual prominence with landscape treatments, open space/plaza, special paving (concrete crosswalks), architectural features, and pedestrian scale lighting. B. PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Intent: To provide safe, convenient access to the Urban Center and the Center Village; incorporate various modes of transportation, including public mass transit, in order to reduce traffic volumes and other impacts from vehicles; ensure sufficient parking is provided, while encouraging creativity in reducing the impacts of parking areas; allow an active pedestrian environment by maintaining contiguous street frontages, without parking lot siting along sidewalks and building facades; minimize the visual impact of parking lots; and use access streets and parking to maintain an urban edge to the district. Page 7 of 35 f 1. Location of Parking: Intent: To maintain active pedestrian environments along streets by placing parking lots primarily in back of buildings. Minimum Standard: No surface parking shall be located between a building and the front property line or the building and side property line on the street side of a corner lot. The existing building is oriented in such a way that the parking lot is located between the building and the front property line. This layout will remain the same in the proposed conditions. Guideline: In areas of mixed use development, shared parking is recommended. The project site will contain only the Walmart store; however, there are other uses surrounding this property. Each building has sufficient parking for its intended use. 2. Design of Surface Parking: Intent: To ensure safety of users of parking areas, convenience to businesses, and reduce the impact of parking lots wherever possible. Minimum Standard: Parking lot lighting shall not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.175b). The majority of lighting on-site will be existing to remain. Any new proposed lighting will not spill onto adjacent or abutting properties. Minimum Standard: All surface parking lots shall be landscaped to reduce their visual impact (see RMC 4-4-080177, Landscape Requirements). The surface parking lot will be landscaped in conformance with the landscaping requirements in RMC 4-4-090. Additional perimeter landscaping has been added on the street frontages. Guideline: Wherever possible, parking should be configured into small units, connected by landscaped areas to provide on-site buffering from visual impacts. In new parking areas, landscape islands are placed every six stalls in order to break up the parking areas. However, in existing parking areas, the emphasis was on retaining the Page 8 of 35 existing mature trees on-site. Spacing of landscape islands in these areas exceed six stalls, but all islands have been widened. Guideline: Access to parking modules should be provided by public or private local streets with sidewalks on both sides where possible, rather than internal drive aisles. The layout of the site will remain similar to existing conditions, where access to parking is via internal drive aisles. Guideline: Where multiple driveways cannot be avoided, provide landscaping to separate and minimize their impact on the streetscape. No new driveways are proposed. However, additional perimeter landscaping has been added on the SW Seventh Street and Rainier Avenue South frontages. 3. Structured Parking Garages: Intent: To more efficiently use land needed for vehicle parking; encourage the use of structured parking throughout the Urban Center and the Center Village; physically and visually integrate parking garages with other uses; and reduce the overall impact of parking garages when they are located in proximity to the designated pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Designated Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75% of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection IMC 4-3-100.F5c). (b) The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Not applicable. Minimum Standard: Parking Structures Fronting Non -Pedestrian -Oriented Streets: (a) Parking structures fronting non -pedestrian -oriented streets and not featuring a pedestrian -oriented facade shall be set back at least 5 feet from the sidewalk and feature substantial landscaping. This includes a combination of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground cover. This setback shall be increased to 10 feet adjacent to high visibility streets. Not applicable. Page 9 of 35 (b) The Director may allow a reduced setback where the applicant can successfully demonstrate that the landscaped area and/or other design treatment meets the intent of these standards and guidelines. Possible treatments to reduce the setback include landscaping components plus one or more of the following integrated with the architectural design of the building: (1) Ornamental grillwork (other than vertical bars); (2) Decorative artwork; (3) Display windows; (4) Brick, tile, or stone; (5) Pre -cast decorative panels; (6) Vine -covered trellis; (7) Raised landscaping beds with decorative materials; or (S) Other treatments that meet the intent of this standard. Not applicable. (c) Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Not applicable. Minimum Standard: Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street frontages at a minimum of 75 percent of the frontage width (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5c). Not applicable. Minimum Standard: The entire facade must feature a pedestrian -oriented facade. Not applicable. Minimum Standard: Facades shall be articulated architecturally, so as to maintain a human scale and to avoid a solid wall. Vehicular entrances to nonresidential or mixed use parking structures shall be articulated by arches, lintels, masonry trim, or other architectural elements and/or materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.F5d). Page 10 of 35 9 Not applicable. Is Guideline: Parking garage entries should be designed and sited to complement, not subordinate, the pedestrian entry. if possible, locate the parking entry away from the primary street, to either the side or rear of the building. Not applicable. Guideline: Parking garage entries should not dominate the streetscape. Not applicable. Guideline: The design of structured parking at finished grade under a building should minimize the apparent width of garage entries. Not applicable. Guideline: Parking within the building should be enclosed or screened through any combination of walls, decorative grilles, or trellis work with landscaping. Not applicable. Guideline: Parking garages should be designed to be complementary with adjacent buildings. Use similar forms, materials, and/or details to enhance garages. Not applicable. Guideline: Parking service and storage functions should be located away from the street edge and generally not be visible from the street or sidewalks. Not applicable. Page 11 of 35 0 4. Vehicular Access: 0 Intent: To maintain a contiguous, uninterrupted sidewalk by minimizing, consolidating and/or eliminating vehicular access off streets within pedestrian environments and/or designated pedestrian -oriented streets. Guideline: Parking lots and garages should be accessed from alleys or side streets. No new access points are proposed as a part of this project. Therefore, access to parking lots will remain from City streets. Guideline: Driveways should be located to be visible from the right-of-way, but not impede pedestrian circulation on-site or to adjoining properties. Where possible, minimize the number of driveways and curb cuts. Driveways are visible from the public right-of-way and do not impede on pedestrian circulation to adjoining properties. No new driveways are proposed; however, a new pedestrian connection to SW Seventh Street is proposed. C. PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT: Intent: To enhance the urban character of development in the Urban Center and the Center Village by creating pedestrian networks and by providing strong links from streets and drives to building entrances; make the pedestrian environment safer and more convenient, comfortable, and pleasant to walk between businesses, on sidewalks, to and from access points, and through parking lots; and promote the use of multi -modal and public transportation systems in order to reduce other vehicular traffic. 1. Pathways through Parking Lots: Intent: To provide safe and attractive pedestrian connections to buildings, parking garages, and parking lots. Minimum Standard: Clearly delineated pedestrian pathways and/or private streets shall be provided throughout parking areas. The existing pedestrian pathway to Rainier Avenue South will be widened and enhanced with pedestrian scale decorative lighting. In addition, a pedestrian access to SW Seventh Street will be added as a part of the expansion. Minimum Standard: Within parking areas, pedestrian pathways shall be provided perpendicular to the applicable building facade, at a maximum distance of 150 feet apart (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4a). Page 12 of 35 Two pedestrian pathways are proposed, including one new connection to SW Seventh Street and a widened pathway to Rainier Avenue South. The new connection to SW Seventh Street will provide access to the Metro transit stop. In order to maintain the existing parking layout and a reasonable parking ratio, additional pedestrian connections are not feasible. 2. Pedestrian Circulation: Intent: To create a network of linkages for pedestrians to improve safety and convenience and enhance the pedestrian environment. Minimum Standard: Developments shall include an integrated pedestrian circulation system that connects buildings, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk system and adjacent properties (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4b). The development contains pedestrian circulation that connects the store, open space, and parking areas with the adjacent street sidewalk systems on Rainier Avenue South and SW Seventh Street. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks located between buildings and streets shall be raised above the level of vehicular travel. Sidewalks that are located between the building and streets are raised six inches above the level of vehicular travel. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian pathways within parking lots or parking modules shall be differentiated by material or texture from adjacent paving materials (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4c). Pedestrian crosswalks that are within parking lots will be of a different material than the parking lot. Crosswalks will be concrete; however, they will still be striped per MUTCD standards. Minimum Standard: Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to accommodate anticipated numbers of users. Specifically: (a) Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings 100 or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 12 feet in width. The walkway shall include an 8 foot minimum unobstructed walking surface and street trees (see illustration, subsection RMC-4-3-100.G4d). Page 13 of 35 0 1-1 Crosswalks along the facade of the building vary from 36 feet to 100 feet in width. (b) To increase business visibility and accessibility, breaks in the tree coverage adjacent to major building entries shall be allowed. Tree coverage will not block visibility or accessibility to the building entry. (c) For all other interior pathways, the proposed walkway shall be of sufficient width to accommodate the anticipated number of users. A 10 - 12 foot pathway, for example, can accommodate groups of persons walking four abreast, or two couples passing one another. An 8 foot pathway will accommodate three individuals walking abreast, whereas a smaller 5 — b foot pathway will accommodate two individuals. Crosswalks (other than those in front of the building) are eight feet wide, and proposed sidewalks are five feet wide. The pedestrian connection in front of the store has two feet of vehicle overhang on either side, for a total width of nine feet. Minimum Standard: Locate pathways with clear sight lines to increase safety. Landscaping shall not obstruct visibility of walkway or sight lines to building entries. Pathways will have clear line of sight and landscaping will not obstruct visibility of the walkway or building entry. Minimum Standard: All pedestrian walkways shall provide an all-weather walking surface unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users and complementary to the design of the development. Pedestrian walkways will be concrete sidewalk. Crosswalks will be concrete with striping per MUTCD standards. Guideline: Delineation of pathways may be through the use of architectural features, such as trellises, railings, low seat walls, or similar treatment. The primary pedestrian connection to Rainier Avenue South will be delineated with 12'- 14' decorative pedestrian lighting. Page 14 of 35 0 11 Guideline: Mid -block connections are desirable where a strong linkage between uses can be established. Not Applicable. Guideline: Decorative fences, with the exception of chain link fences, may be allowed when appropriate to the situation. Decorative fences/enclosures will be used to enclose the bale and pallet (recycling) area. 3. Pedestrian Amenities: Intent: To create attractive spaces that unify the building and street environments and are inviting and comfortable for pedestrians; and provide publicly accessible areas that function for a variety of activities, at all times of the year, and under typical seasonal weather conditions. Minimum Standard: Provide pedestrian overhead weather protection in the form of awnings, marquees, canopies, or building overhangs. These elements shall be a minimum of 4-1/2 feet wide along at least 75 percent of the length of the building facade, a maximum height of 15 feet above the ground elevation, and no lower than 8 feet above ground level. Overhead weather protection, in the form of canopies, is proposed at both building entrances. Minimum Standard: Site furniture provided in public spaces 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. The design includes a pedestrian canopy with benches and trash cans. The benches and trash cans are weather resistant and don't retain water. Minimum Standard: Site furniture and amenities shall not impede or block pedestrian access to public spaces or building entrances. The proposed benches and pedestrian amenities are layed out in such a way that they will not block pedestrian access to public spaces or the building entrances. Page 15 of 35 0 L� Guideline: Transit shelters, bicycle racks, benches, trash receptacles, and other street furniture should be provided. The proposed plaza area includes benches, trash receptacles and bicycle racks. The transit stop is located on SW Seventh Street. Guideline: Street amenities such as outdoor group seating, kiosks, fountains, and public art should be provided. Outdoor seating is provided in the plaza area, as well as an iconic tree in a raised planter. Guideline: Architectural elements that incorporate plants, such as facade -mounted planting boxes or trellises or ground -related or hanging containers are encouraged, particularly at building entrances, in publicly accessible spaces, and at facades along pedestrian -oriented streets (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.G4f). The design includes a pedestrian canopy with benches and trash cans. The benches and trash cans are weather resistant and don't retain water. There will be a raised planter box area with an iconic tree planted with bench seating around it. This iconic tree planter box will be located between the Home & Living and the Market & Pharmacy entrances. D. LANDSCAPING/RECREATION AREAS/COMMON OPEN SPACE: Intent: To provide visual relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. To have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors; provide these areas in sufficient amounts and in safe and convenient locations; and provide the opportunity for community gathering in places centrally located and designed to encourage such activity. 1. Landscaping: Intent: Landscaping is intended to reinforce the architecture or concept of the area; provide visual and climatic relief in areas of expansive paving or structures; channelize and define logical areas of pedestrian and vehicular circulation; and add to the aesthetic enjoyment of the area by the community. Minimum Standard: All pervious areas shall be landscaped (see RMC 4-4-070, Landscaping). Page 16 of 35 0 0 All proposed pervious areas will be landscaped. See Landscape Plan. Minimum Standard: Street trees are required and shall be located between the curb edge and building, as determined by the City of Renton. Street trees are proposed in the perimeter landscaping along Rainier Avenue/Hardie Avenue and along SW Seventh Street. Minimum Standard: On designated pedestrian -oriented streets, street trees shall be installed with tree grates. For all other streets, street tree treatment shall be as determined by the City of Renton (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3a). Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: The proposed landscaping shall be consistent with the design intent and program of the building, the site, and use. The proposed landscaping is consistent with the design intent of the building, site, and use. Minimum Standard: The landscape plan shall demonstrate how the proposed landscaping, through the use of plant material and nonvegetative elements, reinforces the architecture or concept of the development. The landscape plan shows the proposed plant materials and reinforces the concept of the development. Minimum Standard: Surface parking areas shall be screened by landscaping in order to reduce views of parked cars from streets (see RMC 4-4-084F7, Landscape Requirements). Such landscaping shall be at least 10 feet in width as measured from the sidewalk (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3b). Surface parking areas are screened from the streets by increasing the perimeter landscaping along the abutting street frontages. Perimeter landscaping on Rainier Avenue South and SW Seventh Street are approximately 55' and 2U' wide, respectively. Page 17 of 35 0 9 Minimum Standard: Trees at an average minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of street frontage. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. Trees along the frontage are spaced thirty feet apart and will reach a mature height of at least 35 feet. The minimum height at planting will be eight feet. Minimum Standard: Shrubs at the minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Shrubs shall be at least 12 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. In perimeter landscaping areas, shrubs are proposed at a minimum rate of one per 20 square feet of landscaped area. Minimum Standard: Ground cover shall be planted in sufficient quantities to provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. The proposed ground cover will provide at least 90 percent coverage of the landscaped area within three years of installation. Minimum Standard: The applicant shall provide a maintenance assurance device, prior to occupancy, for a period of not less than three years and in sufficient amount to ensure required landscape standards have been met by the third year following installation. A minimum maintenance assurance device will be provided prior to occupancy to ensure that the required landscape standards are met with three years. Minimum Standard: Surface parking with more than 14 stalls shall be landscaped as follows: (1) Required Amount: Total Number of Spaces Minimum Required Landscape Area* 15 to 50 15 square feet/parking space 51 to 99 25 square feet/parking space 100 or more 35 square feet/parking space Page 18 of 35 0 0 * Landscape area calculations above and planting requirements below exclude perimeter parking lot landscaping areas. The proposed number of parking stalls is 745; therefore, the minimum amount of interior landscaping is 26,075 sf. The proposed area of interior landscaping is 29,992 sf. (2) Provide trees, shrubs, and ground cover in the required interior parking lot landscape areas. Trees, shrubs, and ground cover have been provided in the interior parking lot landscaping areas. (3) Plant at least one tree for every six parking spaces. Permitted tree species are those that reach a mature height of at least 35 feet . Minimum height or caliper at planting shall be eight feet or two inch caliper (as measured four feet from the top of the root ball) respectively. In new parking areas, there is one tree for every six parking spaces. However, in the existing parking areas, emphasis was put on retaining the existing mature trees onsite. In these areas there is not one tree per six stalls. However, a significant amount of perimeter landscaping has been added on both abutting frontages, both of which contain new shrubs and larger trees. (4) Plant shrubs at a rate of five per 100 square feet of landscape area. Shrubs shall be at least 16 inches tall at planting and have a mature height between three and four feet. The current landscape plan proposes shrubs at a minimum rate of approximately one per 140 square feet of landscaped area. In order to retain the existing mature trees onsite the number of interior landscape islands were reduced but widened. (5) Up to 50 percent of shrubs may be deciduous. Less than 50 percent of the proposed shrubs are deciduous. Page 19 of 35 (6) Select and plant ground cover so as to provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting; provided, that mulch is applied until plant coverage is complete. The proposed ground cover will provide 90 percent coverage within three years of planting. (7) Do not locate a parking stall more than 50 feet from a landscape area. No parking stall is located more than 50 feet from a landscape area. Minimum Standard: Regular maintenance shall be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and that dead or dying plant materials are replaced. Regular maintenance will be provided to ensure that plant materials are kept healthy and dead or dying plants are replaced. Minimum Standard: Underground, automatic irrigation systems are required in all landscape areas. An underground, automatic irrigation system will be installed in all new landscape areas. Existing landscape areas are already equipped with irrigation. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to soften and integrate the bulk of buildings. The intent of the landscaping is to soften and integrate the bulk of the building. Guideline: Landscaping should be provided that appropriately provides either screening of unwanted views or focuses attention to preferred views. The proposed landscaping is intended to focus attention to preferred views. Guideline: Use of low maintenance, drought -resistant landscape material is encouraged. Page 20 of 35 Low maintenance, drought -resistant plants are proposed where appropriate. Guideline: Choice of materials should reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. The plant materials chosen do reflect the level of maintenance that will be available. Guideline: Seasonal landscaping and container plantings are encouraged, particularly at building entries and in publicly accessible spaces. A large planter, containing the iconic tree, is proposed in the plaza area near the building entrance. Guideline: Window boxes, containers for plantings, hanging baskets, or other planting feature elements should be made of weather -resistant materials that can be reasonably maintained. Containers for plantings will be made of weather -resistant materials that can be easily maintained. Guideline: Landscaping should be used to screen parking lots from adjacent or neighboring properties. The proposed landscaping will screen the parking lot from public right -of way. 2. Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: Intent: To ensure that districts have areas suitable for both passive and active recreation by residents, workers, and visitors and that these areas are of sufficient size for the intended activity and in convenient locations; create usable, accessible, and inviting open space that is accessible to the public; and promote pedestrian activity on pedestrian -oriented streets particularly at street corners. Minimum Standard: Mixed use residential and attached housing developments of ten or more dwelling units shall provide a minimum area of common space or recreation area equal to 50 square feet per unit. The common space area shall be aggregated to provide usable area(s) for residents. The location, layout, and proposed type of common space or recreation area shall be subject to approval by the Director. The required common open Page 21 of 35 0 0 space shall be satisfied with one or more of the elements listed below. The Director may require more than one of the following elements for developments having more than 100 units. (a) Courtyards, plazas, or multi-purpose open spaces; (b) Upper level common decks, patios, terraces, or roof gardens. Such spaces above the street level must feature views or amenities that are unique to the site and are provided as an asset to the development; (c) Pedestrian corridors dedicated to passive recreation and separate from the public street system; (d) Recreation facilities including, but not limited to, tennis/sports courts, swimming pools, exercise areas, game rooms, or other similar facilities; or (e) Children's play spaces. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, required landscaping, driveways, parking, or other vehicular use areas shall not be counted toward the common space requirement or be located in dedicated outdoor recreation or common use areas. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects required yard setback areas shall not count toward outdoor recreation and common space unless such areas are developed as private or semi -private (from abutting or adjacent properties) courtyards, plazas or passive use areas containing landscaping and fencing sufficient to create a fully usable area accessible to all residents of the development (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3c). Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: Private decks, balconies, and private ground floor open space shall not count toward the common space/recreation area requirement. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects, other required landscaping and sensitive area buffers without common access links, such as Page 22 of 35 0 0 pedestrian trails, shall not be included toward the required recreation and common space requirement. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: All buildings and developments with over 30,000 square feet of nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian - oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3d) according to the following formula: 1% of the lot area + 1% of the building area = Minimum amount of pedestrian - oriented space Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: To qualify as pedestrian -oriented space, the following must be included: (a) Visual and pedestrian access (including barrier -free access) to the abutting structures from the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; (b) Paved walking surfaces of either concrete or approved unit paving; (c) On-site or building -mounted lighting providing at least four foot-candles (average) on the ground; and (d) At least three feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per 60 square feet of plaza area or open space. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: The following features are encouraged in pedestrian -oriented space (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.H3e) and may be required by the Director: (a) Provide pedestrian -oriented uses on the building facade facing the pedestrian - oriented space. (b) Spaces should be positioned in areas with significant pedestrian traffic to provide interest and security — such as adjacent to a building entry. (c) Provide pedestrian -oriented facades on some or all buildings facing the space. Page 23 of 35 (d) Provide movable public seating. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: The following are prohibited within pedestrian -oriented space: (a) Adjacent unscreened parking lots; (b) Adjacent chain link fences; (c) Adjacent blank walls; (d) Adjacent dumpsters or service areas; and (e) Outdoor storage (shopping carts, potting soil bags, firewood, etc.) that do not contribute to the pedestrian environment. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: The minimum required walkway areas shall not count as pedestrian - oriented space. However, where walkways are widened or enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian -oriented space if the Director determines such space meets the definition of pedestrian -oriented space. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: Commercial Arterial Zone Public Plazas. At each corner of the intersections listed below, there shall be provision of a public plaza of no less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum dimension of 20 feet on one side abutting the sidewalk. The public plaza must be landscaped consistent with RMC 4-4-070, including at minimum street trees, decorative paving, pedestrian -scaled lighting, and seating. These public plazas are to be provided at all of the following intersections: i. Benson Area: Benson Drive S./108th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 176th. ii. Bronson Area: Intersections with Bronson Way North at: (a) Factory Avenue N_ / Houser Way S.; (b) Garden Avenue N.; and (c) Park Avenue N. and N. First Street. iii. Cascade Area: Intersection of 116th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 168th Street. iv. Northeast Fourth Area: Intersections with N.E. Fourth at: (a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; (b) Monroe Avenue N.E.; and (c) Union Avenue N.E. Grady Area: Intersections with Grady Way at: (a) Lind Avenue S.W.; (b) Rainier Avenue S.; Page 24 of 35 (c) Shattuck Avenue S.; and (d) Talbot Road S. vi. Puget Area: Intersection of S. Puget Drive and Benson Road S. vii. Rainier Avenue Area: Intersections with Rainier Avenue S. at: (a) Airport Way / Renton Avenue S.; (b) S. Second Street; (c) S. Third Street/ S.W. Sunset Boulevard; (d) S. Fourth Street; and (e) S. Seventh Street_ viii. North Renton Area: Intersections with Park Avenue N. at: (a) N. Fourth Street; and (b) N. Fifth Street. ix. Northeast Sunset Area: Intersections with N.E. Sunset Boulevard at: (a) Duvall Avenue N.E.; and (b) Union Avenue N.E. Not Applicable. Guideline: Common space areas in mixed use residential and attached residential projects should be centrally located so they are near a majority of dwelling units, accessible and usable to residents, and visible from surrounding units. Not Applicable. Guideline: Common space areas should be located to take advantage of surrounding features such as building entrances, significant landscaping, unique topography or architecture, and solar exposure. Not Applicable. Guideline: In mixed use residential and attached residential projects children's play space should be centrally located, visible from the dwellings, and away from hazardous areas like garbage dumpsters, drainage facilities, streets, and parking areas. Not Applicable. Page 25 of 35 9 0 E. BUILDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate_ To discourage franchise retail architecture. 1. Building Character and Massing: Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and visually appearto be at a human scale; and ensure that all sides of a building, that can be seen by the public, are visually interesting. Minimum Standard: All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'). The building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/calors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building. Guideline: Building facades should be modulated and/or articulated with architectural elements to reduce the apparent size of new buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest, and enhance the character of the neighborhood. The building fa4ade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building. Guideline: Articulation, modulation, and their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings. Not Applicable. Guideline: A variety of modulations and articulations should be employed to add visual interest and to reduce the bulk and scale of large projects. The building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building. Guideline: Building modulations should be a minimum of two feet deep, 16 feet in height, and eight feet in width. Page 26 of 35 0 0 Guideline: Alternative methods to shape a building such as angled or curved facade elements, off -set planes, wing walls, and terracing will be considered; provided, that the intent of this Section is met. The "street -facing publicly visible" front elevation is designed with a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the "mass" of the building bringing the scale of the project to a more "pedestrian" level. 2. Ground -Level Details: Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human -scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building within near or distant public view have visual interest. Minimum Standard: Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior pedestrian pathways are prohibited. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank wall if: (a) It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet in height, has a horizontal length greater than 15 feet, and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing; or (b) Any portion of a ground floor wall having a surface area of 400 square feet or greater and does not include a window, door, building modulation or other architectural detailing. The front building facade is modulated using a variety of materials/colors/roof heights and shapes in an attempt to reduce the mass of the building. Existing sides of the building to remain will be treated with a contrasting paint scheme. Minimum Standard: Where blank walls are required or unavoidable, blank walls shall be treated with one or more of the following (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15d): (a) A planting bed at least five feet in width containing trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines adjacent to the blank wall; (b) Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines; (c) Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other special detailing that meets the intent of this standard; (d) Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or (e) Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting. Existing sides of the building to remain will be treated with a contrasting paint scheme. Page 27 of 35 Minimum Standard: Treatment of blank walls shall be proportional to the wall. The contrasting paint scheme on existing walls to remain will be proportional to the wall. Minimum Standard: Provide human -scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape feature along the facade's ground floor. Decorative lighting fixtures and trellises are planned along the front facade. Minimum Standard: Facades on designated pedestrian -oriented streets shall have at least 75 percent of the linear frontage of the ground floor facade (as measured on a true elevation facing the designated pedestrian -oriented street) comprised of transparent windows and/or doors. Clear glazing has been incorporated in as many areas possible on the front elevation. The vestibules and cart storage areas are composed of a high percentage of clear glazing. Much of the rest of the fa§ade are made up of offices/tenant spaces/rest rooms that prohibit clear glazing. Minimum Standard: Other facade window requirements include the following: (a) Building facades must have clear windows with visibility into and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. Clear glass windows are proposed where possible. (b) Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than permanent displays. Windows are not "display" windows. They're not meant for display of merchandise. (c) Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. Page 28 of 35 0 0 Clear glazing is proposed. (d) Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror -type) glass and film are prohibited. Tinted glass is not proposed. Guideline: The primary building entrance should be made visibly prominent by incorporating a minimum of one of the following architectural features from each category listed (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15e): (a) Facade Features: (1) Recess; (2) Overhang; (3) Canopy; (4) Trellis; (5) Portico; (6) Porch; (7) Clerestory. (b) Doorway Features: (1) Transom windows; (2) Glass windows flanking door; (3) Large entry doors; (4) Ornamental lighting (5) Lighted displays. (c) Detail Features: (1) Decorative entry paving; (2) Ornamental building name and address; (3) Planted containers; (4) Street furniture (benches, etc.). The primary building entrance will be made prominent using the following architectural features: (a) Facade Features: Overhang; Canopy; (b) Doorway Features: Transom windows; Ornamental lighting (c) Detail Features: Street furniture (benches, etc.). Page 29 of 35 Guideline: Artwork or building ornamentation (such as mosaics, murals, grillwork, sculptures, relief, etc.) should be used to provide ground -level detail. Trellises above the windows at the cart storage areas are proposed. Guideline: Elevated or terraced planting beds between the walkway and long building walls are encouraged. Raised planter box is proposed. 3. Building Roof Lines: Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall use at least one of the following elements to create varied and interesting roof profiles (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3-100.15f): (a) Extended parapets; (b) Feature elements projecting above parapets; (c) Projected cornices; The building will use the above elements, as well as a pitched roof. Minimum Standard: Locate and screen roof -mounted mechanical equipment so that the equipment is not visible within 150 feet of the structure when viewed from ground level. Visual screening of the roof mounted equipment is proposed. Minimum Standard: Screening features shall blend with the architectural character of the building, consistent with RMC 4-4-095E, Roof -Top Equipment. Proposed parapets will visually screen the roof top equipment. Minimum Standard: Match color of roof -mounted mechanical equipment to color of exposed portions of the roof to minimize visual impacts when equipment is visible from higher elevations. Page 30 of 35 0 0 If RTU equipment is visible from higher elevations, it will be painted to match the color of the roof. 4. Building Materials: Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time; encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings; and encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood. Minimum Standard: All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if different, with materials of the same quality. Minimum Standard: Materials, individually or in combination, shall have an attractive texture, pattern, and quality of detailing for all visible facades. Building materials will have an attractive combination of color, material, and texture. Minimum Standard: Materials shall be durable, high quality, and reasonably maintained. Building materials will employ variations in color, material, and texture. Minimum Standard: Buildings shall employ material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes. Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4'from finished floor) and painted block. Guideline: Building materials should be attractive, durable, and consistent with more traditional urban development. Appropriate examples would include brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre -finished metal, stone, steel, glass, and cast -in-place concrete. Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4' from finished floor) and painted block. Page 31 of 35 0 0 Guideline: Concrete walls should be enhanced by texturing, reveals, snap -tie patterns, coloring with a concrete coating or admixture, or by incorporating embossed or sculpted surfaces, mosaics, or artwork. Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4' from finished floor) and painted block. Guideline: Concrete block walls should be enhanced with integral color, textured blocks and colored mortar, decorative bond pattern and/or incorporate other masonry materials. Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4' from finished floor) and painted block. Guideline: Stucco and similar troweled finishes should be used in combination with other more highly textured finishes or accents. They should not be used at the base of buildings between the finished floor elevation and four feet (4') above. Areas of new construction include a variety of materials such as integrally colored split face block, integrally colored Trespa panels, prefinished metal panels, eifs (above 4' from finished floor) and painted block. F. SIGNAGE: Intent: To provide a means of identifying and advertising businesses; provide directional assistance; encourage signs that are both clear and of appropriate scale for the project; encourage quality signage that contributes to the character of the Urban Center and the Center Village; and create color and interest. Minimum Standard: Signage shall be an integral part of the design approach to the building. New Signage will be an integral part of the design approach to the building. Minimum Standard: Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriately for their location. Page 32 of 35 0 0 New logos and signs will be sized appropriately for their location. Minimum Standard: Prohibited signs include (see illustration, subsection RMC 4-3- 100.J3a): 1. Pole signs; ii. Roof signs; iii. Back -lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet signs). Exceptions: Back -lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as are signs with only the individual letters back -lit. No prohibited signs are proposed. Minimum Standard: In mixed use and multi -use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. Not Applicable. Minimum Standard: Freestanding ground -related monument signs, with the exception of primary entry signs, shall be limited to five feet above finished grade, including support structure. All such signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may incorporate stone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. If a monument sign is proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance, it will meet this criteria. Minimum Standard: Entry signs shall be limited to the name of the larger development. A monument sign may be proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance. Walmart is the larger development on this site. Guideline: Alteration of trademarks notwithstanding, corporate signage should not be garish in color nor overly lit, although creative design, strong accent colors, and interesting surface materials and lighting techniques are encouraged. Page 33 of 35 0 0 Not Applicable. Guideline: Front -lit, ground -mounted monument signs are the preferred type of freestanding sign. A monument sign may be proposed at the SW Seventh Street Entrance. Guideline: Blade type signs, proportional to the building facade on which they are mounted, are encouraged on pedestrian -oriented streets. Proposed building signage is limited to an internally LED lit brand sign and directional vestibule signs clearly designating the type of goods and services provided at each entrance. G. LIGHTING: Intent: To ensure safety and security; provide adequate lighting levels in pedestrian areas such as plazas, pedestrian walkways, parking areas, building entries, and other public places; and increase the visual attractiveness of the area at all times of the day and night. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall conform to on-site exterior lighting regulations located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On -Site. Proposed lighting will match the existing 40' lights on-site. Minimum Standard: Lighting shall be provided on-site to increase security, but shall not be allowed to directly project off-site. Lighting will provide increased security, but will not directly project off-site. Wall pack lights are proposed around the building for safety. Minimum Standard: Pedestrian -scale lighting shall be provided, for both safety and aesthetics, along all streets, at primary and secondary building entrances, at building facades, and at pedestrian -oriented spaces. Decorative sconces illuminate the entrances. Llplighting is proposed at the pedestrian canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide a safer environment for Page 34 of 35 customers waiting for pick up or drop off. Wall pack lights are proposed around the building for safety. in addition, 12'-14' decorative pedestrian lights will be added to the Rainier Avenue South connection. Guideline: Accent lighting should be provided at focal points such as gateways, public art, and significant landscape features such as specimen trees. Uplighting is proposed at the pedestrian canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide a safer environment for customers waiting for pick up or drop off. Guideline: Additional lighting to provide interest in the pedestrian environment may include sconces on building facades, awnings with down -lighting, decorative street lighting, etc. Decorative sconces illuminate the entrances. Uplighting is proposed at the pedestrian canopy to illuminate the translucent canopy at night to provide a safer environment for customers waiting for pick up or drop off. Wall pack lights are proposed around the building for safety. Page 35 of 35 Oif'Y of Rentor, PkKTIAL 1'!4'nr�ir, Drvr,ian APPLICATION FOR R , LEASE OF EASEMENT F -8 IN THE CITY OF RENTON «110 To the Honorable Mayor and Date Jilntr Ty 19 y „ 1010 __ �CE9VED Members of the City Council I City of Renton Cireulatc@By: PAfl,p,WD 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Address: N. Dear Mayor and Council Members: Telephone: 2 a 6- 5 22 - 9 5-10 We, the undersigned property owners abutting a certain portion of public easement, as acquired from ry;6 of' Pe im dated ()c+yber 31, l 944 , and recorded under King County Ftecording Number , respectfully request the release of said easement. That portion of the easement area to be released being more particularly described on the attached "Exhibit A". The undersigned each consent to such proposed easement release and warrants that the granting thereof will not adversely affect his vested rights as an abutting owner. signature signature print name phone print name phone address address property identification number property identification number ------------------------------------------------------------ Instructions: 1. Attach complete legal description (i.e. metes and bounds, etc.) 2. a) Sign name. (Signatures of owners of 213 of lineal frontage must sign. Spouses do not need to sign. Owners in common must sign. Contract sellers must sign.) b) Print name and phone number. C) List Property address and King County tax parcel identification number. 3. Attach a map to the petition designating the vacation boundaries. 4. Submit $ 2501"iling fee with application_ SUBMIT PETITION TO THE CITY CLERK, SEVENTH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL. If and when the City Council approves the vacation at a public hearing, payment of a post hearing processing fee of %.' $V Op- will be required. 11.Varmsksmn rel -DOT 1199 • . 9 signature print name phone signature print name address address property identification number property identification number phone signature signature print name phone print name phone address address property identification number property identification number signature signature print name phone print name phone address address property identification number property identification number MkformAesm ret.QOTt199 0 0 EXHIBIT "Ari LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THAT STRIP OF LAND AS PROVIDED FOR AND DESCRIBED IN THAT PERPETUAL EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER RECORDED UNDER NO. 61116011 RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT SOUTH 01023'12" WEST 590 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19; SAID POINT BEING ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE NORTH 89003138" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE WEST MARGIN OF HARDIE AVENUE SOUTHWEST; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89003'38" WEST 419.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 001134122" WEST 319.10 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 256.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0003542" EAST 10.46 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 10.46 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00035'42" EAST 217.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89024118" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00035'42" WEST 21..39 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 73036'22" WEST 10.4:6 FEET THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THE PARCEL DESCRIBED ABOVE CONTAINS 41289 SQUARE FEET (0.0985 ACRE), MORE OR LESS. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. BONNELL FAMILY, LLC WALMART RENTON JAMES M. HARPER, P.L.S. BRH JOB NO. 2.009108.01 JANUARY 22, 2010 BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. 2009 MINOR AVENUE EAST SEATTLE, WA 98102 (206) 323-4144 LLJ 00 cc �-•— ,�'b 8Z t �n no r' W zLooo LWT vo�o � 4 � I 7D ck� 1' LLJ Cl - 1 •,1 i w \ 1 1 CD r wQ F--o� J C) . N z:- r �� CV Q 1 1 Lq f5 Ln LO C�r 4 � o LJ d -cc CO � 1 1 LJ 1 1 Z Z Q OD H to F u-) (.!) J N WC:) L'J mc0 d U L!7 c0 O N LTJ 1�1S1L\1111111�S1�1U1L»1111tiUA11\1`U11U11�1111�1111'! !'fir DO LS'L lS �uL�,b L ION a LION m 1 � E m � r4 'C cli W m �I LU WLL z a0 J a WJ z 1 LL o Wm J CC0 LLL JJ W Cc z O Jm F a CL WF LION Printed: 02-08-2010 CITY OF RENTON 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Land Use Actions RECEIPT Permit#: LUA10-009 Payment Made: 02/08/2010 04:25 PM Total Payment: 3,000.00 Current Payment Made to the Following Items: 9 City of Renton .... ........ Planning Division FEB - $ iu)d RECENED Receipt Number: 81000639 Payee: PACLAND-SEATTLE, PC Trans Account Code Description Amount ------ 5010 ------------------- 000.345.81.00.0007 ------------------------------ Environmental Review ---------------- 1,000.00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval 21000.00 Payments made for this receipt Trans ----------- Method Description Amount Payment -------- --------------------------- Check 1131 --------------- 3,000.00 Account Balances Trans Account Code Description Balance Due ------ 3021 ------------------ 303.000.00.345.85 -------------------------------- Park Mitigation Fee --------------- .00 5006 000.345.81.00.0002 Annexation Fees .00 5007 000.345.81.00.0003 Appeals/Waivers .00 5008 000.345.61.00.0004 Binding Site/Short Plat .00 5009 000.345.81.00.0006 Conditional Use Fees .00 5010 000.345.81.00.0007 Environmental Review .00 5011 000.345.81.00.0008 Prelim/Tentative Plat .00 5012 000.345.81.00.0009 Final Plat .00 5013 000.345.81.00.0010 PUD .00 5014 000-345.81.00.0011 Grading & Filling Fees .00 5015 000.345.81.00.0012 Lot Line Adjustment .00 5016 000.345.81.00.0013 Mobile Home Parks .00 5017 000.345.81.00.0014 Rezone .00 5018 000.345.81.00.0015 Routine Vegetation Mgmt .00 5019 000.345.81.D0.0016 Shoreline Subst Dev .00 5020 000.345.81.00.0017 Site Plan Approval .00 5021 000.345.81.00.0018 Temp Use, Hobbyk, Fence .00 5022 000.345.81.00.0019 Variance Fees .00 5024 000.345.81..00.0024 Conditional Approval Fee .00 5036 000.345.81.00.0005 Comprehensive Plan Amend .00 5909 000.341.60.00.0024 Booklets/EIS/Copies .00 5941 000.341.50.00.0000 Maps {Taxable) .00 5954 650.237.00.00.0000 DO NOT USE - USE 3954 .00 5955 000.05.519.90.42.1 Postage .00 5998 000.231.70.00.0000 Tax .00 Remaining Balance Due: $0.00