Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2024 - HEX Decision - Medical Shell - LUA-24-0002181 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Medical Shell Office Building Site Plan, Reasonable Use and Street Modification PR24-000052 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan, a reasonable use exception to encroach 62 feet into a 115 foot buffer to Honey Creek and a street modification to construct a 5,200 sq. ft., one- story office building for a future medical office use at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1-25 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the October 29, 2024 hearing were entered into the record during the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 1. Applicant. Tyler Graff, Graves + Associates / 2102 N Pearl St, Tacoma, WA 98406 / tgraff@gravesassoc.com 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on October 29, 2024, at 11 am, Zoom ID No. 946 7233 4580. 3. Project Description. The Applicant requests approvals of hearing examiner site plan, a reasonable use exception to encroach 62 feet into a 115 foot buffer to Honey Creek ( a Type F stream) and a street modification to construct a 5,200 sq. ft., one-story office building for a future medical office use at 4409 NE Sunset Blvd. Other proposed site improvements include a 26-stall surface parking lot and modified street frontage improvements to include a new sidewalk and planter strip along NE Sunset Blvd. The subject property (APN 0323059093) is a vacant parcel located on the south side of NE Sunset Blvd near the intersection of Anacortes Ave NE. The project site totals 0.81 acres in area. Access is proposed via a new driveway off of NE Sunset Blvd. The requested street modification is to RMC 4-6-060, Street Standards, for the section of NE Sunset Blvd adjacent to the site. NE Sunset Blvd is classified as a Principal Arterial street. Specifically, the Applicant is requesting a modification to the following street section: 103-foot (103’) ROW width including four (4) – 11-foot (11’) travel lanes, one (1) – 12-foot (12’) center turn lane, and two (2) – 5- foot (5’) bike lanes. A 0.5-foot (0.5’) curb, an 8-foot (8’) planter, and 8-foot (8’) wide sidewalk are required along both sides of the pavement. Two feet (2’) of clear space behind the sidewalk is required along both sides of the roadway. The Applicant is proposing to retain the curb-to-curb width and provide the complete street standards behind the curbline including an eight-foot (8’) wide planter, an eight-foot (8’) wide sidewalk, and two feet (2’) of clear space behind the sidewalk. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure and public services are more directly addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service areas. There are existing sewer and water mains on Sunset Boulevard. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service. Renton Regional Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the improvements and fire impact fees required of the project. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s stormwater regulations. The Applicant proposes to add more than 5,000 square feet of new and replaced pollution generating impervious area. Therefore, the Applicant is required to provide enhanced basic water quality treatment, which would be reviewed at the time of Construction Permit submittal. Stormwater improvements proposed for the project include the installation of a below-grade vault, outfall control structure, permeable pavement, and bio-retention cells. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Technical Information Report (TIR), prepared by AHBL, Inc, dated April 19, 2024 (Exhibit 12) and preliminary grading and drainage plan (Exhibit 8). The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The Manual generally requires that the proposal not generate off-site flows that exceed pre- developed forested conditions of the project site. The TIR submitted is based on a full drainage review as required in the 2022 Renton Surface Water Design Manual. Core requirements one through nine (1-9), as well as the six (6) special requirements, have been discussed in the Technical Information Report. All requirements would be addressed in the final TIR submitted and reviewed with the Civil Construction Permit application. The advisory notes (Exhibit 20) highlight several errors in the TIR that need to be addressed in the Final TIR. Staff’s opinion is that any changes can be addressed with the Civil Construction Permit review and are not critical at this time. D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal does not require the provision of any significant parks or open space because there is no residential component. RMC 4-9-200.E.3 does require that open space be incorporated into project design to serve as project focal points and to provide areas for passive and active recreation. This project objective is achieved by the primary entrance, which is recessed approximately 26 feet (26’) from the north facade wall and creates a small plaza area on the corner. The entry is connected to the public sidewalk via a pedestrian walkway. E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. The Applicant submitted a Trip Generation Memo prepared by TENW and dated June 4, 2024 (Exhibit 15). According to the report, the proposed project is estimated to generate 130 new weekday daily trips with six (6) new trips occurring during the weekday AM peak hour (3 in, 3 out), and eight (8) new trips occurring during the weekday PM peak hour (4 in, 4 out). The calculation was based on the ITE Manual for Trip Generation, 11th Edition. Therefore, a full Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 Staff determined that at completion of the project, the development would have met City of Renton traffic concurrency requirements (Exhibit 17), which is based upon a test of the citywide Transportation Plan, consideration of growth levels included in the LOS- tested Transportation Plan, site specific improvements, and future payment of Transportation Impact Fees. Access to the site would be provided via one (1) new driveway off of Sunset Blvd NE. Proposed site improvements include modified street frontage improvements to include a new sidewalk and planter strip along NE Sunset Blvd. The proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages by including a five-foot (5’) wide concrete pedestrian walkway connecting the public sidewalk, the front entry, the rear entries, the parking lot, and the garbage/recycling enclosure, resulting in robust connections between all major site elements. To provide additional space for an entrance feature such as a bench or similar feature, a condition of approval requires that the section of the on-site sidewalk between the public sidewalk in NE Sunset Blvd and the plaza area near the main entrance shall have a minimum width of six feet (6’) Public works staff have evaluated the proposal for safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation and have found that with recommended conditions the proposed circulation achieves this purpose. One such condition recommended by staff and adopted by this decision addresses the proposed parking configuration. The Applicant proposes to construct an “L” shaped parking lot with access off NE Sunset Blvd. Six (6) of the 26 stalls on the west side of the site are angled in a manner that could be difficult for drivers to maneuver out of safely. Therefore, staff recommended a condition adopted by this decision requiring the Applicant to submit an internal traffic circulation analysis that demonstrates how vehicles would safely enter and exit the parking lot on the site. The analysis shall evaluate turning movements both into and out of the stalls, as well as identify where drivers could safely turnaround on the site if all parking stalls were filled. F. Schools. The proposal does not require the provision of adequate and appropriate school facilities because there is no residential component. G. Refuse and Recycling. As conditioned, the proposal complies with applicable refuse and recycling regulations and thus provides for adequate and appropriate facilities to address solid waste impacts. RMC 4-4-090E3 requires a minimum of 2sf per 1,000sf of building gross floor area shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas. A minimum of 4sf per 1,000sf of building gross floor area shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of 100sf shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 The Applicant submitted plans showing a refuse and recycling deposit area to the south of the building adjacent to the surface parking lot. Based on the gross floor area of the building, 5,200 sq. ft., the proposal would require 10.4 square feet of recyclable deposit areas and 20.8 square feet of refuse deposit areas for a total of 31.2 square feet. The Applicant submitted a Trash Enclosure Plan, with the application (Exhibit 6). While the proposed enclosure complies with the size, material, and setback requirements, the location of the enclosure near the back of the parking lot may present problems for the garbage service provider (Republic Services), particularly due to the lack of turnaround. Therefore, in order to ensure the provider can effectively collect the refuse and recycling, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant shall submit a letter from the garbage and recycling service provider approving the location of the enclosure. H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed parking complies with the City’s parking standards. Parking regulations require medical and dental office uses to provide a minimum and maximum of 5.0 per 1,000 square feet of net floor area. The Applicant has proposed the construction of a surface parking lot with 26 total spaces, including three (3) ADA spaces. The total gross floor area of the building is approximately 5,200 sq. ft. The Applicant has proposed the construction of a shell building with no interior walls or finishes, with the intent to lease the building to a future medical or dental business. The interior would be built out to meet the specific needs of a future a tenant and therefore the net floor area is currently unknown. Based on a gross floor area of 5,200 sq. ft., the Applicant would be required to provide a total of 26. In addition, City staff have determined that the dimensions of the parking stalls appear to comply with the parking stall dimension standards, which would be verified at the time of formal building permit application review. I. Landscaping and Fencing. As conditioned, the proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping and fencing by conforming to the City’s landscaping standards. The City’s landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) require a 10-foot landscape strip along all public street frontages. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Parking lots are also subject to perimeter landscaping standards and parking lots with more than 14 stall are subject to interior landscaping standards. The Applicant has submitted a Conceptual Landscape Plan (Exhibit 7) that staff have determined meets the City’s landscaping standards for this preliminary level of landscape review. An eight-foot (8’) wide street tree planting strip is proposed between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 the new curb and sidewalk. This landscape strip is proposed to be vegetated with Japanese snowbell street trees and lawn. The species ‘Japanese snowbell’ is not on the City’s approved Street Tree List. The landscape plan also includes a 10-foot (10’) onsite landscape strip along the project frontage, perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping within the proposed surface parking to the south and west of the new building, and landscaping within areas of the site not developed by buildings or impervious surface. The 10-foot (10’) on-site landscaped area would be planted with a variety of shrubs and ground cover including Muskogee crape myrtle, Pacific wax myrtle, Purple gem azalea, sword fern, and Purple rock rose. The proposal includes a total of 26 surface parking spaces within the parking area immediately to the south and west of the proposed medical office building. A total of 390 sq. ft. of interior parking lot landscaping would be required for 26 parking spaces (15 sq. ft. x 26 stalls = 390 sq. ft.). The Applicant has proposed four (4) interior landscape islands totaling approximately 485 sq. ft., which exceeds the minimum 390 sq. ft. required. In addition, perimeter landscaping is located between the ROW and first parking space and includes a tree, shrubs, and groundcover. J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. Transit is also easily accessible. City standards require that bicycle parking shall be provided for all residential developments that exceed five (5) residential units and/or all non-residential developments that exceed four thousand (4,000) gross square feet in size. The number of bicycle parking spaces shall be equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of required off-street vehicle parking spaces. Based on the minimum number of vehicle spaces required for the use (26 spaces), the Applicant is required to provide a minimum of three (3) bicycle parking spaces (10% of 26 = 2.6 spaces). The Applicant proposes three bicycle parking spaces as required. City staff have determined that the proposed will meet City designs standards with the added condition adopted by this decision that a bicycle parking detail be submitted at the time of building permit review for approval. Multiple King County Metro bus stops are located nearby on NE Sunset Blvd which serve surrounding communities and provide access to downtown Renton. K. Loading and Delivery. Deliveries of medical testing products or similar would be from standard mail, UPS, or FedEx trucks. These delivery vehicles are anticipated to use the proposed parking lot for access and drop off/pick up. In order to minimize the potential 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 for a pedestrian/vehicular conflict created by trucks providing delivery or pick up of medical products or tests, a condition of approval, the Applicant shall submit an updated site plan identifying a loading and delivery area separate from the customer/employee parking and pedestrian areas. 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On September 30, 2024, the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Views. No impacts to views are anticipated. The proposed structure would not block view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier. Due to the topography of the southern portion of the site, no shoreline or mountain views are present. The proposed building has a maximum height of approximately 25 feet (25’) above grade. B. Compatibility. As conditioned, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses. Surrounding uses range from single-family residential to a fast food restaurant. The modest bulk and scale of the proposal and its conformance to landscaping and Design District D standards assures aesthetic compatibility with surrounding uses. The projects lack of significant impacts assures compatibility of use. Aesthetic compatibility will be further enhanced with screening of utility equipment. Any proposed surface mounted or rooftop mounted utility equipment shall be screened from public view. In the submitted Architectural Elevations (Exhibit 4), the Applicant indicates that future mechanical equipment would be located on the roof of the new building behind a parapet wall. The parapet would extend approximately four feet (4’) above the roofline and would provide ample screening for most types of mechanical equipment. The effectiveness of the parapet to screen equipment would be evaluated as part of any future building permit review. No surface mounted equipment, such as utility boxes, HVAC components, or emergency generators, were shown on the site plan. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that a screening detail be provided for any proposed surface or roof mounted utility equipment. The screening detail for surface mounted utility equipment that includes cross sections of the utility and screening shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit review. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. As conditioned and mitigated, the proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy. i. Light and Glare. As conditioned, no lighting impacts are anticipated. No lighting specifications were shown on the utilities or site plan and no separate lighting plan was submitted. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a lighting plan for City staff approval that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075 and provides enough light for security but does not create excessive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 light impacts on neighboring properties. In addition, the parking and pedestrian areas shall also contain adequate lighting to ensure safety and security. ii. Noise. As conditioned and mitigated, no adverse impacts from noise are anticipated. The primary use of the site would be for office and City staff have anticipated that the future use would generate noise with levels that have been deemed acceptable for these types of uses within the CA zoning designation. iii. Privacy. Privacy will not be adversely affected by the proposal due to the large size of the property. D. Critical Areas. The project site is encroached with a Type F Stream and sensitive slopes. No wetlands, flood hazards, or habitat conservation areas were found on the site per the Applicant’s Stream Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated May 30, 2024 (Exhibit 13). The proposal is found to adequately avoid impacts to the stream and sensitive slopes since it conforms to the City’s critical area regulations as follows: i. Type F Stream. As mitigated, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts to a Type F stream located on the project site. Staff have found the Applicant’s proposal and associated mitigation to conform to the City’s critical area standards. The Applicant’s Stream Study, Ex. 13, p. 8, concluded that with recommended mitigation the proposal “will ensure no net loss of riparian area and provide an overall improvement in riparian functions.” A condition of approval requires conformance to the recommendations of the Applicant’s Stream Study so that no net loss is assured. The project site is mapped with a Type F stream (Honey Creek). The Applicant’s Stream Study, Ex. 13, assesses and mitigates impacts to Honey Creek, which crosses the southwest corner of the site, as a Type F stream with a 115-foot (115’) buffer and additional 15-foot (15’) structure setback per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050G. The creek flows from a culvert onto the site and then flows west to east across the site in an open channel where it enters the neighboring property and is piped approximately 665 feet (665’) under the additional properties to the west, going under NE Sunset Blvd and exiting the pipes into an open drainage ditch in the street ROW. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of the north side of the creek was delineated by the consultant on April 12, 2024 and was subsequently surveyed. The surface parking lot, stormwater detention vault, bioretention ponds are proposed to be located inside of the standard buffer, approximately 40 feet (40’) from the OHWM at the closest point, and therefore the Applicant has applied for a Reasonable Use Variance as outlined in RMC 4- 9-250B.7. The Reasonable Use Variance requesting a 40-foot (40’) enhanced reduced buffer would be reviewed as part of the site plan review process. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 proposed building would be located fully outside of both the 115-foot (115’) standard Type F buffer and 15-foot (15’) structure setback. The Applicant has proposed approximately 4,460 sq. ft. of buffer enhancement. According to the report and associated mitigation plan, enhancement activities would include trash/debris removal from the stream and buffer areas, invasive species removal (primarily Himaylan blackberries, Knotweed, and English ivy), the planting of a diverse mix of native trees and shrubs, and the installation of permanent fencing and signs along the perimeter of the buffer. The Applicant has proposed planting native species including big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, Oregon grape, vine maple, and others. According to the study, the proposed mitigation would improve buffer functions on the site by increasing noise and visual screening, improving wildlife habitat functions, and limiting intrusion by humans and pets into the area surrounding the stream. In addition, as required by RMC 4-3-050G.3, the Applicant would be required to establish a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE) encompassing the stream and buffer, protecting the on- site portion of the stream and buffer in perpetuity. Staff concurs with the study’s findings and recommends approval of the buffer reduction associated with the requested reasonable use variance. ii. Sensitive Slopes. According to City of Renton (COR) Maps, sensitive slopes are located on the project site. As such, the Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by South Sound Geotechnical Consulting, dated February 12, 2018 (Exhibit 11). The topography of the site is generally flat but descends slightly to the south towards Honey Creek with a total elevation change across the site of approximately five feet (5’). The memo contains information on soil infiltration capacity, groundwater table location, and soil types. The report concludes that the proposed 5,200 sq. ft. building and associated site improvements are feasible and that properly prepared native soils can be used for the support of conventional spread foot foundations, floor slabs, and pavement. Per the advisory comments from the Development Engineering reviewer (Exhibit 20), the geotechnical report was originally prepared for a mixed-use development project. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a signed and sealed letter from a licensed geotechnical engineer stating that they have reviewed the construction plans and, in their opinion, the proposed plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. 6. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. As conditioned, the proposal meets the City’s tree retention standards and thus is found to adequately protect and retain site trees. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 The Applicant submitted an Arborist Report, prepared by Greenforest Incorporated, dated April 2, 2018 (Exhibit 9), that City staff have determined meets the City’s tree retention standards.. According to the Applicant, two (2) significant trees and two (2) landmark trees are present on the site including a 29- inch (29”) DBH Douglas fir tree, a 27-inch (27”) DBH Douglas fir tree, a 30-inch (30”) Douglas fir tree, and an 18-inch (18”) DBH Maple tree. The report indicates that two (2) of the trees, the Maple and the 30-inch (30”) Douglas fir are located in the proposed reduced stream buffer and therefore were not analyzed. The other two (2) trees located outside of the buffer, the 27-inch (27”) and 29-inch (29”) DBH Douglas firs are proposed for removal based on the design of the site improvements, resulting in a tree retention rate of 0%. The two (2) trees proposed for removal were determined by the arborist to be in good health. Review of the site plan finds that at least one (1) of the two (2) trees could be saved with minimal impact to the overall design of the site. Therefore, to ensure compliance with the tree retention standards for the CA zone, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant retain either the 29-inch (29”) DBH Douglas fir tree or the 27-inch (27”) DBH Douglas fir tree identified in the Arborist Report submitted with the application. 7. Necessity of Reasonable Use Request. Approval of the reasonable use request is necessary for reasonable use of the property. The 115 foot buffer to Honey Creek covers the majority of the project site. If the full buffer was required, the developable area of the existing 35,496 sq. ft. lot would be reduced by approximately 20,000 sq. ft., or less than half of the full area. A potential building would be further constrained by buffer setbacks, standard yard setbacks, and stormwater requirements. The proposed building size is 5,200 square feet. Staff testified at hearing that this was a minimum size for commercial viability for a medical use, that other medical buildings are typically 7,500 square feet or 10,000 square feet. Also according to City staff hearing testimony, the proposed building is “far” on the small end compared to surrounding commercial buildings. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. The site plan, reasonable use and street modification requests require hearing examiner review and final approval. The site plan requires approval by the Hearing Examiner because it is for a commercially zoned project adjacent to or abutting residentially zoned property (RMC 4-9-200.D.2.c). RMC 4-8-080G classifies hearing examiner site plans as Type III applications, administrative variances such as the reasonably use request as Type II applications and street modifications as Type I applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be collectively processed under “the highest -number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” for the permit applications identified above and therefore must be employed for the reasonable use, street modification and site plan applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) within Urban Design District D. Its comprehensive plan land use designation is Commercial Mixed Use (CMU). 3. Review Criteria. Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-200.E.3 and reasonable use criteria for stream buffer encroachments by RMC 4-9-250B7. All applicable review criteria for the reasonable use and site plan applications are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The criteria for the street design modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is governed by RMC 4-9-250.D.2. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 22 of the staff report are adopted by this reference in full to conclude that all review criteria for the requested street modification are met. SITE PLAN RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 4. The criterion is met. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards, including those of Design District D, as outlined in Findings No. 16-18 and 20 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 5. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 6. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in Finding of Fact No. 4I and 5C. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance with respect to geologically hazardous areas and streams, there are no natural features adversely affected by the proposal. The scale of the structure is adequately mitigated through the extensive design standards of Design District D and landscaping requirements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 7. The criterion is met. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E. Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4J. Loading and delivery areas shall be separated as required in a condition of approval. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 8. The criterion is met as noted in Finding of Fact No. 4D. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 9. The criterion is met. As noted in Finding of Fact 5A, no shoreline or mountain views are available at the project site due to topography. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 10. The criterion is met. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas as required by the critical area regulations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 11. The criterion is met. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 12. There is no phasing plan proposed. Reasonable Use RMC 4-9-250B7a: That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 13. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the proposed encroachment will result in no net loss of ecological function if the recommendations of the Applicant’s Stream Study, Ex. 13, are met. RMC 4-9-250B7b: There is no reasonable use of the property left if the requested variance is not granted; 14. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 7, the proposed building size is as small as can be reasonably requested for medical use. More generally, the size of the building is also on the small end of building sizes when compared to other buildings in the vicinity. For these reasons, denial of the use for a commercially zoned lot would leave no other reasonable use of the property. RMC 4-9-250B7c: The variance granted is the minimum amount necessary to accommodate the proposal objectives; 15. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in the preceding Conclusion of Law. RMC 4-9-250B7d: The need for the variance is not the result of actions of the Applicant or property owner; and 16. The criterion is met. The need for the variance is solely due to the Type F stream and not the actions of the Applicant. RMC 4-9-250B7e: The proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905; or where there is an absence of valid scientific information, the steps in subsection F of this Section are followed. 17. The criterion is met. Per WAC 365-195-905, the criteria to determine whether information is considered the “best available science” includes Peer Review, Methods, Logical Conclusions and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 Reasonable Inferences, Quantitative Analysis, and the Utilization of Context References. The Applicant’s Stream Study, Ex. 13, was prepared by experts that specialize in critical areas reconnaissance and environmental planning. City staff found that according to their website, the firm has completed successful wetlands and stream mitigation projects in many other communities in the Puget Sound region. The report included adequate analysis of the conditions and utilized best practices as determined by the Department of Ecology for stream identification and delineation. The consultant utilized a site visit and industry-standard stream references when making the determination that the project would improve the water quality for the stream and provide protective functions to the on-site buffer and riparian area. Therefore, the proposed variance is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAC 365-195-905. DECISION The site plan, reasonable use request and street modification meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall retain either the 29-inch (29”) DBH Douglas fir tree or the 27-inch (27”) DBH Douglas fir tree identified in the Arborist Report submitted with the application. 2. A screening detail for any proposed surface or roof mounted utility equipment be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. The screening detail for surface mounted utility equipment that includes cross sections of the utility and screening shall be provided at the time of Construction Permit review. 3. The Applicant shall submit a letter from the garbage and recycling service provider approving the location of the enclosure. The letter shall be submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Civil Construction Permit issuance. 4. A bicycle parking detail be submitted at the time of Building Permit Review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager demonstrating that the proposal would comply with the bicycle parking requirements as required in RMC 4-4-080F.11. 5. The Applicant shall submit a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with RMC 4-4-075 and provides enough light for security but does not create excessive light impacts on neighboring properties. In addition, the parking and pedestrian areas shall also contain adequate lighting to ensure safety and security. The lighting plan shall include detailed sheets of all existing and new light fixtures on site, footcandle illumination information, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to Civil Construction Permit issuance. 6. The Applicant shall provide a service area screening detail at the time of Building Permit review demonstrating that the service element doors would be self-closing. 7. The section of the on-site sidewalk between the public sidewalk in NE Sunset Blvd and the plaza area near the main entrance shall have a minimum width of six feet (6’). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 8. The Applicant shall install two (2) benches, or an alternative seating option, near either the front or adjacent rear entrance of the building. The site furniture locations and details demonstrating compliance with the design standards shall be provided with the building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 9. The Applicant shall submit a materials board to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Building Permit review for review and approval. 10. The Applicant shall submit an internal traffic circulation analysis that demonstrates how vehicles would safely enter and exit the parking lot on the site. The analysis shall evaluate turning movements both into and out of the stalls, as well as identify where drivers could safely turnaround on the site if all parking stalls were filled. The analysis shall be reviewed or approved prior to issuance of the Civil Construction Permit. 11. The Applicant shall submit an updated site plan identifying a loading and delivery area separate from the customer/employee parking and pedestrian areas. The updated site plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 12. The Applicant shall submit a signed and sealed letter from a licensed geotechnical engineer stating that they have reviewed the construction plans and, in their opinion, the proposed plans and specifications meet the intent of the report. The letter shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of the civil construction permit. 13. The Applicant shall provide documentation of the existing 20-foot (20’) wide sewer easement on the site. The document shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works plan reviewer prior to issuance of the Civil Construction Permit. If no easement is found to exist, the Applicant shall establish a new sewer easement prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. The location, size, and language of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works plan reviewer prior to issuance of the Civil Construction Permit. In addition, a paved access road to the existing sewer manhole (COR Facility ID MH 3619) within the 20 feet wide easement shall be provided. No structures shall be installed within the existing easement, and the proposed bioretention cell shall be located outside of the existing public utility easement. 14. The proposal shall conform to all recommendations made in the Applicant’s Stream Study and Buffer Mitigation Plan, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated May 30, 2024 (Exhibit 13). DATED this 20th day of November, 2024. City of Renton Hearing Examiner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN AND REASONABLE USE- 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 10 Appendix A October 29, 2024 Hearing Transcript Site Plan and Reasonable Use -- PR24-000052 Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:04): Perfect. I think we're official. Okay. For the record, it's October 29th, 2024, 11:00 AM at Res Hearing Examiner for the City of Renton and holding a hearing this morning on project file number PR 24 dash 0 0 0 5 2, which is a consolidated applications for hearing exam or site plan review, a reasonable use exception and a street modification for one story medical office building. So the hearing format is, we'll start off with a presentation from staff and who's going to be our staff person today It looks like Mr. Morgan Roth. Are you there? Yep, he's ready to go. He'll give us a summary of the staff report he put together and the proposal. Once Mr. Morgan Roth is done, we'll move on to the applicant. It looks like Mr. Funk there is representing the applicant today. He'll have an opportunity to speak Mr. Funk if you want to after Mr. Rogen Roth is done. (00:56): It's not mandatory but if you want to add anything you feel free to do so. Once we're done with the applicant comments then we'll move on to public comments and it looks like we might have some members of the public today. We'll see once we get to that part of the hearing and we'll explain how everyone who wants to say something today, we will be able to have that opportunity. Once we're done with the public comments, we go back to Mr. OV to answer any questions that were raised and Mr. Morgan Roth can also add rebuttal evidence as he finds necessary to complete the record. Then the applicant, Mr. Font gets final word. I get 10 business days. That's usually turns out to be a couple weeks to issue that final decision at this point. Ms. Cisneros, can you show us the exhibit list and I'll go over the exhibits real quick. (01:40): Projects like this take a lot of work and a lot of documentation reports, that kind of thing. And here we have an exhibit list put together by Mr. Morgan Roth on all the plans he found pertinent to the review criteria for these applications, which includes the environmental review. That was a determination by the city after reviewing all the environmental impacts on whether an environmental impact statement was necessary and the determination was made that it wasn't, which is pretty typical for a project of this small scale. We have the site plan, architectural elevations, color rendering, trash enclosure plans, landscape plan, drainage plans, arbor's plan to tree retention worksheet, geotechnical analysis, preliminary technical information report, which is probably drainage and we also have a critical area there, a stream. And so there was some assessment on how to address with impacts to that the trip generation for traffic impacts. There was a street modification request, concurrency memo, which deals with whether or not the city's traffic congestion standards are met. Basically we got one public comment Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 10 which was from the Duwamish tribe and that's been addressed at least staff has tried to address those comments through its cultural resource mitigation measures. And then we have some advisory notes from the city. So that's exhibits one through 20. And I know Mr. Dero, you've got a couple more you'd like to throw in there. Speaker 1 (03:06): Yes, Examiner Olbrechts: (03:07): There they are. Let's see. So we also have the staff report of which is, that's the report. Mr. Morgan Roth will be summarizing the environmental review determination of nons significance. That's the decision that an environmental impact statement is not necessary. And finally, just a few more exhibits. 23, Speaker 1 (03:25): Oh I think I have the wrong page, I'm sorry. Examiner Olbrechts: (03:26): Oh, there we go. And then we also have the staff PowerPoint, the city of Renton maps, which would be aerial photographs and zoning maps, that kind of thing, that planning information about the project site. And finally Google Earth giving us some aerial photographs of the project site. So in total we have a total of 25 exhibits At this point, just want to ask if anyone has any objection to their entry in the record. If you're participating virtually, just hit click the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen if you need to see any of these documents or have any objection to their entry. The documents are available at the city's website if you look up a hearing examiner. Okay, hearing, seeing no objections, we'll admit Exhibits one through 25. Mr. Morgan Roth, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 3 (04:11): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (04:11): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 3 (04:13): Okay, thanks Mr Lexander. One second. Let me share my PowerPoint here. Alright, you guys got that all right? Examiner Olbrechts: (04:29): Yeah, looks good. Speaker 3 (04:30): Okay, perfect. Thank you. Well, hello, I'm Alex Morgan Roth, principal planner with the city going to be making a staff recommendation for a project known as the medical office show, building L Uua 24 0 0 0 2 1 8 is our file number. A little bit about the project site. I've got a map down there and just keep in mind for anyone listening from the public or anyone else, all these exhibits are available online. So I Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 10 know it's a little bit small in the PowerPoint, but you might look at any of these a little bit bigger. You can do that after the hearing. So again, sites highlighted there, just south of Northeast Sunset Boulevard, the corner of Northeast Sunset and Anacortes Avenue Northeast. It does has one street frontage along Sunset there, it's about 0.81 acres zoning is commercial arterial. And then our Urban Design District D overlay, which is a design district that's applicable to all of our zoning, commercial mixed use, comprehensive plan, land use designation. Right now it's an undeveloped site, mostly kind of packed gravel and some unmaintained vegetation. So no building structures, anything else there right now as far as critical areas, we've got sensitive slopes and then there's a type F stream we'll get into a little bit more later that cuts across the southeast corner of the site. (05:51): So the applicant's proposing environmental review, hearing examiner site plan review, reasonable use exemption or variance used interchangeably here in a street modification. And this project is for, they're proposing an office building specifically for probably a medical use. So under our code we have kind of medical office as a use and that's usually dental veterinarian, maybe kind of small like outpatient doctor's office, things like that. So one story building, 5,200 square feet, 25 foot max height, the top of the highest roof peak there. And again for future medical use, no, my understanding in the applicant can address this later, but no current tenants lined up, but just kind of planning for a future 1 26 surface parking stalls proposed. Now they're proposing access via one driveway off of Northeast Sunset Boulevard. They're proposing improvements along Northeast Sunset Boulevard. So that's a sidewalk and a planter strip. The street modification is not for the improvements or for the pedestrian improvements, it's for keeping the current curb to curb width of sunset. (07:03): Our transportation department reviewed that section, determined that we don't really need any wider there. So they're still doing the required improvements. The landscape strip with street trees and the new sidewalk, they're just not moving the curb line there. So staff is supportive of that request. And then the reasonable use variance or exemption exemption, it's a request to encroach approximately 62 feet into the Honey Creek buffer. And again, I'll get a little bit more into this later, but just for tho se listening to the reasonable use variance is essentially, it is kind like a typical variance, although it's specifically for critical areas and allows an applicant to request that to modify buffers to critical areas that might not otherwise be allowed for our critical areas regulations. And it's really for sites like this, like this site and staff's opinion, that development would be a really big challenge if you strictly applied the buffers. There's also other considerations that we look at. How is the buffer functioning right now for the critical area In this case it's a stream. What will the improvements, will they improve the ecological function of the stream section on the site? But that's kind of what this is. So it's the requesting basically the ability to encroach further into that buffer than might otherwise be allowed per our code. (08:29): Here's the site plan. Again, you can see this a little easier in the PDF, you pull it up after, but you've got the building along northeast Sunset Boulevard meeting all of our setbacks. You've got a driveway entrance to the west of the building and then you've got the surface parking lot to the south and then a couple spots to the west of the building. And again, we'll get into this more. We can kind of see the line there to the south side of the site. That's basically the new buffer line, which would be 40 feet. And you can see the stream, the delineated stream on the very, it just kind of cuts across the corner there. It comes from the site to the east stream where McDonald's is, it's piped under there, it's lighted on this site, piped a little bit on the next site and then goes under sunset. (09:11): Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 10 So it is a type F stream meaning that it's considered, it could be fish bearing. I think it'd be challenging for fish to get through a lot of these culverts and stuff. But that's where the stream is located, kind of where it goes there. Here's some elevations of the building as you getting see the 25 foot max height is on the northwest corner there near the entrance you've got, they're mostly CMU materials in multiple colors, which you'll see in the rendering coming up next. Metal canopies, metal paneling along the facades. A decent amount of modulation, articulation of the facade. So overall a nice looking building that generally conforms with our urban design standards for this zone. I'll just jump back really quick to the site plan. It actually has two entrances to the building. I'm sorry, not two primary entrances. Then a few more on the backside here. (10:04): So you got the primary one off of sunset is right in this little corner here. There's also another entrance off the parking lot here. And then I think two more over a little further that connect up to the sidewalk there. So perhaps opportunities for multiple tenants or just if there needs to be deliveries or other staff entrances, things of that nature. So it's kind hard to see on the elevations. I just wanted to call that out. Here's a rendering of looking, I guess this would be southeast. So you can see kind of this is the main pedestrian entrance there with the sidewalk connection to a little mini plaza. You can see the material variation there, the large upper story windows, which we like just to help again, break up that facade. You got the metal canopies there and then kind the shed style roof. (10:56): So about zoning, so this is our Highlands Planning and Area community planning area ca zone, just commercial arterial as far as zoning around the area, so you've got zoning basically southeast and west. You've got mostly commercial uses there. The one except to that is to the east, I'm sorry, the west where there is a single family house. It is zoned, it is in a ca zone, but it's located I think about 150 feet from the building. There's a lot of vegetation on that site that does a pretty good job screening to the north. We got R mfs, that's residential multifamily across Sunset Boulevard there. And then as far as the use of medical office are permit permitted outright in the ca zone critical areas you can see, got a little bit of slope in the back but really not much. And then you've got the stream, which is that yellow line Honey creek is what it's known as Type F stream. The standard buffer is 115 feet. That's from measured from the ordinary high watermark. And then you typically have a 15 foot structure setback from that buffer where you couldn't have any structures. You can kind of see here where the stream goes under an artists under the McDonald's site daylight, a little bit piped again, a little bit daylighted again and it kind of goes back and forth until it goes north of sunset there. (12:23): So site plan review, one of the requested reviews there will took a look at primary access. So again accessing off of northeast sunset into that surface parking lot with 26 stalls. There's a lot of new landscaping proposed, especially compared to what's out there now. Mostly between the street and the building and around the perimeter of the site actually pretty substantial landscaping as you can see here. Q minus does not show the landscaping proposed that white area. That'll be the mitigation for this in the stream buffer, there's a separate, they'll submit a final plan for that, so they'll take a look at it. That'll include all native plants and things that'll help promote the health of the stream. This is just for the onsite or non-critical area, non buffer area, a lot of parking lot landscaping as well. One of the concerns we can talk about more, but just a quick overview is just with customer vehicular circulation and delivery. (13:16): Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 10 So we were just looking at this, we didn't obviously have turning movements and stuff and showing, but we looked a little with these kind of angle and spots as a little concern of how someone would come in there and then maybe they look back out and if they would kind of get trapped or make it difficult to get out the parking lot's full. So there's a condition related to that, just asking for basically a traffic circulation analysis or it might take amending the site plan of we're just changing the parking lot, reconfiguring it a little bit, but it's not for sure a problem. It's just look, be looked at it a little bit and measured a couple things and it looked like it might be a little tricky for cars to get in and out of there. And the other concern related to the parking lot as part of the site plan review was the delivery area. (13:58): So medical use can get testing stuff or other things that kind of daily deliveries. Usually not large trucks but smaller ones. So just making sure again that there's not just a total any pedestrian vehicular conflicts in the parking lot when you've got delivery trucks coming in and out and people trying to back in and out of these angled stalls. So think just maybe a little more work on that. And there were just a little more analysis on that from the applicant demonstrating that that will work and maybe where they plan to have those deliveries. So there's a condition, a recommended condition related to that, then you've got a garbage enclosure there in the back of the site. We just want to get something from Republic Services, the garbage and recycling provider that says that they're okay with this location or how it's going to work just because they often have issues with accessing sites where it's kind of tight like this. So they did submit a traffic, they impact analysis with 130 new daily trips that didn't include many trips. I think it was four during the am I think in six during the PM peak hour or something like that. Single digits. So no substantial impact to traffic. And so there was no specific traffic mitigation recommended as part of the environmental review. (15:15): So reasonable use variance. So kind of went into it a little bit. But basically what they're requesting is to provide a 40 foot as opposed to 115 foot, a 40 foot enhanced reduced buffer pursuant to what our code allows. So again, part of the reason their justification for this is that if you applied the full maximum buffer plus the building setback, that would eat up about two thirds of the site by the time you build in setbacks required landscaping, parking, it would make it the applicant that would make it about impossible to build a viable commercial building there. And I will say we've worked with them. I've had a number of free apps on this, I've worked with 'em on this for a while. I know the applicant, Mr. Fox worked on it for a while. I think this is a good after reviewing the mitigation plan and the stream assessment from the biologist, which basically documented that the stream is not in good shape there right now it's just kind of debris, black invasive Himalayan Blackberry, the buffers completely degraded essentially. (16:20): And again, it's, it's not providing, considering its pipe on either side, that makes it challenging as well and is what you can do to improve the ecological value. But they did submit the stream assessment, which we looked at and that did, the biologists did concur that this would be a substantial improvement. Talking about planting native plants and removing the invasives garbage, installing the cedar rail fencing that would protect it. Doing the native growth protection easement. All of that would really contribute to a much higher quality stream buffer, even though it's reduced over what the standard would be. So I'm not going to get into all this, but these are kind of the five criteria we looked at and did find. I did find that they met the criteria there. And so recommending approval of that reasonable use variance pending the final mitigation plan that we would review as part of the civil construction permit. (17:17): Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 10 So this is again, we will require a very conceptual plan at this time. So we can see the buffer there. 40 feet, you can see where the max buffer, or sorry, the standard buffer would be, how that would come all the way up there. And so it's about 40, 4500 square feet of buffer enhancement and that there's going to be more landscaping outside the buffer. We just don't count it as technically part of the buffer just because the type of plants use and being so close to the parking lot there. And then again, they will submit a final mitigation plan at a later time. (17:53): So some of the key project features I wanted to call out. So significant landscaping across the site, the stream buffer enhancement, we want them to retain at least one landmark tree on the site. That's a condition of approval. And then the high quality design and proposed building, I think they definitely put some effort in try to meet the design standards with the different materials used and the use of the metal canopies, the large upper story windows, things of that nature. So we will review the design a little bit more when building permit comes in, understanding that some changes occasionally happen between the landings entitlement and the building permit, but do expect it to end up looking pretty close to this environmental review. So as you mentioned, Mr. Examiners did go through environmental review with the city acting as the CPA lead agency. So determination of not significant mitigate was issued on September 30th. No appeals were filed. We did get one comment as you noted from the Duwamish tribe as part of the land use public comment period. And that was just related to the potential discovery of artifacts. (19:06): That was the environmental review committee took that recommended mitigation measure. I'm not going to read through each, I kind of do a really high level summary of each one of these, but there's 13 conditions of approval that staff is recommending. First ones related to retaining one of the trees that's on the site just to make sure we're meeting our tree retention requirements, requiring a screening detail for any proposed surface or roof mounted equipment at a later time that comes in the letter from the garments and recycling service, just that they're okay with the location of that. A little more info on the bike parking we wanted to see just to make sure complying with our bike parking requirements, a lighting plan, want to see that for the site that shows actually kind of photo metrics and stuff. The service area screening detail. We did ask for the sidewalk connecting, sorry, the private sidewalk. (20:05): So the private pathway that they proposed connecting the front door with the public sidewalk being widened to six feet just to give a little more room is it just looked a little tight there, especially for people in wheelchairs, stuff like that possibly coming in. And it gives a little more room for potentially adding things like a bench, which is actually the next condition. We're looking just for maybe a little more, they did show a few things there, but a couple more options proceeding against, again, just considering what the use is here, asking for materials board to be submitted so we can take a little better look at the materials before construction, the traffic circulation analysis demonstrating how vehicles will safely enter, exit the site. Talked about that a little bit. And then the last three, the loading delivery area again talked about that. A licensed letter from a geotech engineer saying that they've reviewed the construction plans and the specs of the building meet their intent. (21:00): And then the last is related to a sewer easement, which we were fairly certain is on the site. We just want to have documentation of that sewer easement. So our public works review, we can take a look at it and then if there is no easement, making sure that gets recorded prior to issuing a C of O. And then lastly, the long condition, but making sure we have a paid access to that sewer manhole on the site just Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 10 so we can access it. Other than that, those are the 13 mitigation measures. So I'm recommending approval of the medical office shell site plan and reasonable use variance and street modification subject to those conditions. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Examiner Olbrechts: (21:39): Okay. Yeah, I think at the beginning of your presentation you said they were proposing about a 60 or 62 foot encroachment into the stream buffer, but the staff report notes that it gets 40 feet at the closest point to the ordinary high water mark. And I noticed later in your presentation you said that they wanted to have a 40 foot buffer. So what was the 62 foot encroachment referring Speaker 3 (22:00): To that? Well, I think that might've been, so the 62 feet was the 115. It was basically the closest, how do I explain this? So if you took, you can see my screen, the 115, it's about 62 feet and it's basically the edge of the parking lot. They called it a 40 foot buffer. It's really more of like a 40, probably four foot buffer. They're not actually proposing any paving in this area. They just didn't really counter as the buffer because it's so close to the parking lot essentially. It's still going to be vegetation. It's just where the actual cedar rail fence is going to be. That's at the 40 feet Examiner Olbrechts: (22:35): Okay's Speaker 3 (22:35): One of our stand. Yeah, just around. Examiner Olbrechts: (22:38): So the encroachment really is more like 75 feet, isn't it? If you're going all the way up to 40 feet from the ordinary high water mark, you have 115 foot buffer. Speaker 3 (22:49): Yes, I've written poorly. So basically the 75 feet, yes, it would be all the way to the fence. I guess I was trying to imply that I didn't get right. Didn't articulate that very well, is that the parking lot itself? The actual last on the site would be at that 62 feet above. Examiner Olbrechts: (23:07): Oh, okay. So between that edge and the cedar fence, it's going to be natural. Basically Speaker 3 (23:11): A little buffer for the buffer essentially. Examiner Olbrechts: (23:13): So you're, Speaker 3 (23:14): Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 10 It'll be some vegetation in there, the plane, the actual buffer or the cedar rail that is going to be the 40 feet. So yeah, apologize for that. Examiner Olbrechts: (23:21): No, I was just trying to understand what's going on there. And kind of a more complicated question, and this is something I always struggle with, the reasonable use for commercial use is the minimum reasonable use requirement. Obviously you have a smaller building, you get less parking required. That could be of significant benefit to the stream itself. I mean you determine that the proposed size is minimum reasonable use here. Speaker 3 (23:45): Yeah, great question. So you hit around the head, the reasonable use exemption or variance process that we have is, I don't want to say it's a gray area, but we don't have, there's no exact way to calculate what would be considered a reasonable use. And I'm not going to lie that it's a totally objective way of doing it, but there's not really any other way to do it. So typically what we look at and more often we get reasonable use requests for a single family, which you could argue is a little bit easier. Everyone kind of knows what is a normal size single family house you would need for family of four in renting. Maybe you'd be looking at a 3, 2 1500 square feet. Okay, that's easy. But you're right, it is a little trickier for a commercial. For this one we looked at, okay, what are some of the other zone properties developed with around here? Most of 'em have larger buildings and most of 'em have, the stream is piped. So they don't, when they did that, it was okay back then it would not be, most of the development around this wouldn't be allowed under current code. (24:49): That's a little bit we look at is comparing under the previous code, what could they do? How do we kind find the middle ground between the current code, which again really restricts this owner's ability to develop this in a similar fashion as the other properties nearby. And a lot of it's just kind of finding the balance. And so the other factor too is what is the actual stream buffer to look like? In this case, again, the site's been vacant for decade or more, Mr. Kwan can talk about that. It's been heavily degraded just from development around it. So that's partly what we look at too is it's a little bit of a trade off, I guess. Can we get some better ecologically functioning, buffer and stream with providing, again, the reasonably sized, the reasonably dense whatever kind of use you're looking at development away from it. So kind of a roundabout way of saying, yeah, we look at a few different factors. I don't have a formula though to say, oh, that we landed on 5,200 square feet. I will say we did work with the applicant, they did have more intense proposals at other times, and I think 5,200 square feet was kind of landed on as kind of the smallest viable medical office building you could have with the required parking that meets our parking requirements. And with the required setbacks and landscaping and all of that, Examiner Olbrechts: (26:16): I mean, can you kind generally compare this building size to other building sizes in the vicinity, both in terms of just commercial buildings and then maybe more specifically medical office. Can you make any observations about that? Yeah, Speaker 3 (26:29): We've had, so I, not necessarily right in this area, but in the ca zone, similar zone, I've had a medical office, this is small, I would say more often you're seeing them probably in the 75, 10,000 square foot for Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 10 an urgent care or even maybe not a veterinary clinic. Those are oftentimes a little bit smaller. There's not another medical office right by this site. I'll tell you, McDonald's is bigger. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:59): Okay, that's my next question. Yes, totally Speaker 3 (27:01): Different use obviously. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:02): Right, right. But it is bigger Speaker 3 (27:04): To that. Yeah, you look at this building and you look at the surrounding kind of development pattern for commercial buildings, it's on the far small Examiner Olbrechts: (27:12): End. Okay. That's, Speaker 3 (27:13): So with the medical building, you also get, you have more large testing equipment, you need separate rooms. It'd be a little different if this was more of an offsite service where it's just a couple offices and you don't have customers coming to it, maybe an HVAC repair or something could have a really small little footprint and then they just kind of do their work out of there. So I think it is about as small as you can get, again, have a economically viable medical office, whether that's again, urgent care, dental or anything like that. Examiner Olbrechts: (27:46): Okay, sounds good. No, I know it's a tough issue. I've dealt with it a few times before and I mean, unless you actually had some economists or something do a business analysis of all the comparable medical clinics in the city and what the smallest sizes were, you can't get much better information. So no, that's really good. Thank you. Alright, well let's move on to the applicant. Mr. Funk, did you want to add anything at this point? Speaker 1 (28:10): Hope. I think you're muted. Examiner Olbrechts: (28:11): Yeah, you're muted, sir. Yeah. Mr. Funk, I'll have to swear in. Just raise your right hand. You swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding. Speaker 1 (28:18): I do. Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 10 Examiner Olbrechts: (28:19): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 1 (28:21): I think Alex has made a very thorough and accurate presentation. We've had the report in our hands for a few days anyway, maybe four or five days. We've read through it myself and the other members of our team and we've not seen anything in there that seems like it would be onerous to comply with. So basically we're good with it. Examiner Olbrechts: (28:47): Okay, thank you sir. Pretty straightforward. Alright, well let's move on to public comments at this point. And we do have a lot of attendees, but they may all be part of the applicant team. It's hard to tell at this point. If anybody wants to add anything at this point, click on the raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. Not seeing any takers yet. Mr. Cisneros, do you see anyone who wants to say anything at this point? Speaker 1 (29:10): I do not, but I'm just kind of Examiner Olbrechts: (29:11): Oh, sure. Yeah, yeah, let's do it. Speaker 1 (29:13): Anybody would like to comment Examiner Olbrechts: (29:20): Still? No takers. Okay. Yeah, it looks like from the names I see, it looks like they may all be applicant team and that's just fine. I will say if there's somebody out there who's trying to participate and you just can't figure out how, go ahead and email Ms. Cisneros there. She's got her email address right behind her, jay cisneros renton.wa.gov. I'll give the applicants then an opportunity to and staff an opportunity to respond to those emailed comments and then consider that as part of the decision just to get those comments in by 5:00 PM tomorrow. And again, that's only if you're having technical problems today and can't figure out how to participate today. So I guess with that, since we haven't had any public comments, I can go ahead and close the hearing at this point. And like I said, I have 10 business days to issue that decision. (30:05): It seems to meet all the criteria pretty well. I think, as you probably gathered from my discussion with Mr. Morgan Roth, a reasonable use process is a fairly subjective process and especially when it comes to figuring out minimum reasonable use. But I think Mr. Morgan Roth provided some really useful testimony so that I can make the conclusion it is minimum reasonable use and it meets the reasonable use criteria. So we'll get that approval out within the next 10 business days. Assuming we don't get any new comments coming in by tomorrow if something pertinent comes in from the public and that could make a difference. But from the information I have so far, I think it's a pretty good chance I'll be issuing an approval. So thanks all for participating and we're adjourned. Have a great day.