HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Medical Office Shell_202411201
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
CITY OF RENTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
EXHIBITS
Project Name:
Medical Office Shell Building
Project Number:
LUA24-000218, ECF, SA-H, V-H, MOD
Date of Hearing
October 29, 2024
Staff Contact
Alex Morganroth
Principal Planner
Project Contact/Applicant
Tyler Graff, Graves +
Associates, 2102 N Pearl St
Tacoma, WA 98406
Project Location
4409 NE Sunset Blvd NE
(APN 0323059093)
The following exhibits are included with the Hearing Examiner Decision:
Exhibits 1-20: As shown in the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) Report
Exhibits 21-22: As shown in the Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner
Exhibit 23: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 24: COR Maps, http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps
Exhibit 25: Google Earth, https://www.google.com/earth/