HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Design_Review_Letter_Utt_170519_v1.pdf
6161 NE 175th Street, Suite 101
Kenmore, Washington 98028
206.682.5000
cornerstonearch.com
May 19, 2017
City of Renton Planning Division
1055 S. Grady Way, Sixth Floor
Renton, Washington 98055
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
Re: U.S. Bank Expansion—Strada da Valle LLC’s proposed two-bay secure pickup and
delivery truck parking garage addition project proposed at the north end of the
existing one-story office building located at 2500 East Valley Road, Renton, WA
Demonstration of (1) the Proposed Addition’s Compliance with the Particular
Provisions of RMC 4-3-100 (URBAN DESIGN REGULATIONS) That You, Ms.
Weihs, Have Advised Are Applicable and (2) Why Strada’s Request for an Urban
Design Regulations Modification of the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Transparent
Window/Door Standards Should Be Granted
Dear Ms. Weihs:
I am the project architect for applicant Strada da Valle LLC regarding the above-
referenced U.S. Bank Expansion project. At Strada’s request, I am writing for the
following two purposes. First, I am writing to demonstrate that the design of the
proposed parking garage addition complies with the standards of RMC 4-3-100 (URBAN
DESIGN REGULATIONS) set forth in RMC 4-3-100E.5 (Building Architectural Design) that
you have advised me and Strada’s attorney David Halinen are the ones applicable to the
proposed expansion project: namely, (a) BUILDING CHARACTER AND MASSING
Standards 1 and 2, (b) GROUND LEVEL DETAILS (with the exception of that category’s
Transparent Window/Door Standards), (c) BUILDING ROOF LINES, and (d) BUILDING
MATERIALS Standards 2 through 6 for all Design Districts.
Second, I am writing to explain why Strada’s request for an Urban Design Regulations
modification concerning the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS section’s Transparent
Window/Door Standards should be approved. Strada proposes the requested
modification as the means by which the proposed addition will comply with relevant
intent statements and guidelines of RMC 4-3-100 as an alternative to compliance with
the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS section’s Transparent Window/Door Standards.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 2
Page 2
Please refer to the project narrative submitted as part of the overall approval
application package for background information concerning the proposed project. A
vicinity map depicting the general location of the subject parcel within which the
parking garage addition is proposed is set forth below.
The Existing Building and Other Development That Will Surround
the Garage Addition and That Together Create the Physical
Context for the Proposed Garage Addition’s Design
The subject 2,673-square-foot garage addition is proposed along a portion of the north
end of the existing ±28,065-square-foot single-story concrete tilt-up office building
completed in 1991 on what is now Lot 3 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat (City of Renton
File No. LUA-02-042-SHPL, King County Recording No. 20110112900004), a building
referred to herein as “Building C” that is located at 2500 East Valley Road, Renton, WA,
98057. (Lot 3 is referred to in this letter as the “subject parcel.”) No construction is
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 3
Page 3
proposed south of the north end of this existing building. The north end of Building C
forms the south edge of the proposed garage addition project site.
To the north of the subject parcel (on Lot 2 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat) is another
existing single-story concrete tilt-up office building (±15,715 square feet in size). That
building, referred to herein as “Building B,” was also completed in 1991 in conjunction
with Building C and a ±10,405-square-foot single-story concrete tilt-up office building
farther to the north (a building referred to herein as “Building A” that was constructed
on what is now Lot 1 of the Strada da Valle Short Plat). All three of these office buildings
have a common design harmony, sharing the same exterior design elements and
features. Those shared exterior design elements and features include 8-foot-wide
precast concrete wall panels, horizontal reveals, common colors, and common
storefront door and window systems.
Immediately to the east of the subject parcel is the six-lane Valley Freeway (SR 167).
Across the freeway from Lots 1, 2, and 3 (i.e., to the east of the freeway right-of-way) is
the permanent forested open space owned by the City of Renton called the Panther
Creek Wetlands Open Space area.
To the west of the subject parcel across East Valley Road is a 479,000-square-foot
rectangular-shaped office-warehouse building called the Valley Distribution Center.
That building is more than 25 feet tall and, along the building’s east side facing East
Valley Road, is roughly 900 feet long with two segments of loading docks totaling 540
feet of the building’s length. There are no windows along those two segments. That
building—which (1) runs along the entire length of Building C (on Lot 3) that the
proposed garage addition is proposed to connect to, (2) extends north past Building B
(on Lot 2), and (3) extends even farther north past more than the southern half of
Building A yet farther north (on Lot 1)—dwarfs the proposed garage addition. That
massive, bland warehouse building faces the proposed addition.
Along most of the Valley Distribution Center building’s east edge, a row of large truck-
trailers appears to be regularly parked side by side for loading and unloading at the
loading docks, with the rear end of each of those trucks also facing east toward Strada’s
Buildings B and C.
For a depiction of what is summarized in the above paragraphs, see the 06-27-2016
Google Earth aerial view exhibit (Photo 1), below, of the proposed garage addition site
and surrounding existing development and other existing land features.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 4
Page 4
Photo 1
For ground-level views of the proposed garage addition site from various vantage
points, see Photos 2, 3, and 4, below. For a ground-level view of the south face of
Building B (north of the proposed addition), see Photo 5, below. For a ground-level view
of the north face of Building C (generally depicting the project site of the proposed
building addition), see Photo 6, below.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 5
Page 5
Photo 2
Photo 3
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 6
Page 6
Photo 4
Photo 5
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 7
Page 7
Photo 6
Options That RMC 4-3-100A.2 and RMC 4-3-100D.2 Provide
Applicants for Compliance with the Urban Design Regulations
Subsection 2 of RMC 4-3-100A (PURPOSE) explains the options that applicants have
under the Urban Design Regulations for compliance with those regulations. That
subsection states:
2. This Section lists elements that are required to be included in all
development in the zones stated in subsection B1 of this Section. Each
element includes an intent statement, guidelines, and standards. In order
to provide predictability, standards are provided. These standards specify
a prescriptive manner in which the requirement can be met. In order to
provide flexibility, guidelines are also stated for each element. The
guidelines and the intent statement provide direction for those who seek
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 8
Page 8
to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the
standards.
a. The determination as to the satisfaction of the requirement through
the use of the guidelines and the intent statement is to be made by the
Community and Economic Development Administrator.
b. If the Administrator determines that an alternative to the
prescriptive standard meets the applicable guidelines and intent, the
applicant shall not be required to demonstrate compliance with the
standard. (Ord. 5029, 11-24-2003; Ord. 5124, 2-7-2005; Ord. 5286, 5-
14-2007; Ord. 5355, 2-25-2008; Ord. 5531, 3-8-2010; Ord. 5572, 11-15-
2010; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012; Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015)
(Emphasis added.)
In conjunction with the compliance options afforded applicants under subsection 2 of
RMC 4-3-100A (PURPOSE), subsection 2 of RMC 4-3-100D (ADMINISTRATION)
encourages applicants to utilize creative alternatives to achieve compliance with the
Urban Design Regulations. That subsection states:
2. Authority: The Community and Economic Development Administrator
shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
proposals based upon the provisions of the design regulations when no
other permit or approval requires Hearing Examiner review. Proposals will
be considered on the basis of individual merit, the overall intent of the
minimum standards and guidelines, and creative design alternatives will
be encouraged in order to achieve the purposes of the design
regulations. (Amd. Ord. 4991, 12-9-2002; Ord. 5029, 11-24-2003; Ord.
5124, 2-7-2005; Ord. 5286, 5-14-2007; Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012)
(Emphasis added.) I have taken that encouragement to heart in preparing a design for
the proposed building addition.
Relevant Portions of the Applicability Provisions in
Subsection 1 of RMC 4-3-100B
Subsection 1 of RMC 4-3-100B (APPLICABILITY) states in relevant part as follows:
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 9
Page 9
1. Applicability:
a. The following development activities shall be required to comply
with the provisions of this Section:
*
*
*
v. Alterations, enlargements, and/or restorations of nonconforming
structures pursuant to RMC 4-10-050, Nonconforming Structures.
vi. Exterior modifications such as facade changes, windows,
awnings, signage, etc., shall comply with the design
requirements for the new portion of the structure, sign, or site
improvement.
*
*
*
b. Any of the activities listed in subsection B1a of this Section and
occurring in the following overlay areas or zones shall be required to
comply with the provisions of this Section:
*
*
*
iv. District ‘D’: All areas zoned ... Commercial Arterial (CA). (Ord.
5572, 11-15-2010; Ord. 5675, 12-3-2012; Ord. 5743, 1-12-2015;
Ord. 5759, 6-22-2015)
(Emphasis added.) I presume that above-quoted subsection 1.a.v of RMC 4-3-100B is
applicable based on your January 12, 2017 preapplication memorandum’s assertion that
the proposed addition exceeds the maximum front yard setback allowed by Renton
code. I also presume that above-quoted subsection 1.a.vi of RMC 4-3-100B is applicable
because the proposed garage addition involves exterior modifications for the new
portion of the structure.
In view of my two above-noted presumptions, I further presume that above-quoted
subsection 1.b.iv of RMC 4-3-100B is applicable and that the proposed addition is in
District ‘D’ [because the subject parcel is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA) and all areas
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 10
Page 10
zoned CA are, by definition, located in District ‘D’].
How the Proposed Addition’s Design Satisfies the Applicable
Requirements of RMC 4-3-100E [REQUIREMENTS]
Background: Accessory Use Nature of the
Proposed Garage Addition to the Principal
(Office) Use of the Subject Parcel
As a very small parking structure addition to support the existing principal use of the
subject parcel (the office use), the proposed garage addition will provide a use that is
customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the subject parcel and the
existing office building that is on it. [Note that the ±252-square-foot portion of the
overall addition that is to be constructed (1) beneath what is currently a wide roof eave
along a center segment of the existing building’s north façade and (2) south of the line
between the northernmost wall elements of the west and east sides of the existing
building’s north façade is proposed to be incorporated into the office building as
expansion office space. The remaining area of the overall proposed (±2,673-square-
foot) addition is the proposed two-bay parking garage (which will have a ±2,411-square-
foot floor plate).] As such, in view of the Renton Municipal Code’s definition of
accessory uses,1 the garage addition is an accessory use.
Because the garage portion of the addition that will extend north from the two
northernmost existing elements of the existing building’s north façade (1) is the only
portion of the addition that will be viewable by the public and (2) is merely an accessory
use to the existing building, (a) many of RMC 4-3-100E’s Standards are not applicable
(which you have indicated by selecting the standards that I should address) and (2) none
1 The paragraph labeled ACCESSORY USES in subsection A (CATEGORIES OF USES
ESTABLISHED) under RMC 4-2-050 (PERMITTED LAND USES ESTABLISHED) states as follows:
ACCESSORY USES: Uses customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal
use and located upon the same lot occupied by the principal use or on an
abutting/adjacent lot that is under the same ownership as the principal lot. Some
accessory uses are specifically listed, particularly where a use is only allowed in
an accessory form, whereas other accessory uses are determined by the
Development Services Division on a case-by-case basis per RMC 4-2-050C4 and
C6, Accessory Use Interpretations and Unclassified Uses.
(Italics and underlining added.)
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 11
Page 11
of those standards that you selected for me to address should be applied in a rigid
manner as if the garage portion of the addition was intended for the building’s principal
use (office use).
(1) The Proposed Addition (and/or the Subject Building
with the Proposed Addition) Will Be Consistent with All of
RMC 4-3-100E.5.’s Standards That You Have Advised Are
Applicable to the Subject Building Addition Except for the
Transparent Window/Door Standards under the GROUND
LEVEL DETAILS Category, and (2) Reasons Why Strada’s
Proposed Non-Glass Substitute Design Solution Should Be
Approved under the Intent and Guidelines Statements
RMC 4-3-100E.5 (Building Architectural Design) covers these four topics: (1) Building
Character and Massing, (2) Ground Level Details, (3) Building Roof Lines, and (4) Building
Materials. Before I begin explaining details of the proposed design of the building
addition and how the proposed addition relates to the particular Building Architectural
Design standards that you have advised me and Mr. Halinen are the only design
standards that are applicable to the addition, please note that the architectural design
that I have developed for the subject small garage addition to Strada’s existing single-
story office building on Lot 3 is intended to
(1) Meet the addition’s objectives for a functional, secure, two-bay
garage while
(a) maintaining design harmony with
(i) each of the following: (A) Building C (which the
addition will be connected to), (B) Building B, and (C)
Building A (all three of which were approved by the
City as an overall development that shared a common
building architectural design),
(ii) the massive, bland office-warehouse building to the
west across East Valley Road, and
(iii) the Valley Freeway to the east and the open space
area to the east of the freeway and
(b) keeping in mind the very small size of the addition,
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 12
Page 12
(2) Comply with the particular Building Architectural Design standards
that you have advised me and Mr. Halinen are the only urban
design standards applicable to the proposed building addition, and
(3) Provide creative and reasonable design alternatives consistent with
the applicable Building Architectural Design intent statements and
guidelines as an alternative to compliance with the GROUND LEVEL
DETAILS category’s Transparent Window/Door Standards.
With this in mind, note that RMC 4-3-100E.5’s Intent statement, Guidelines, and
Standards (those standards applicable to design District ‘D’) concerning “Building
Character and Massing” state (with emphasis added) as follows:
BUILDING CHARACTER AND MASSING
Intent: To ensure that buildings are not bland and so that they appear to be at
a human scale, as well as to ensure that all sides of a building which can be
seen by the public are visually interesting.
Guidelines: Building facades shall be modulated and/or articulated to reduce
the apparent size of buildings, break up long blank walls, add visual interest,
and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Articulation, modulation, and
their intervals should create a sense of scale important to residential buildings.
Standards:
Districts A
and D
Both of the following are required:
1. All building facades shall include modulation or
articulation at intervals of no more than forty
feet (40').
2. Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2')
deep, sixteen feet (16') in height, and eight feet
(8') in width.
3. Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet
(160') in length shall provide a variety of
modulations and articulations to reduce the
apparent bulk and scale of the facade (illustration
in District B, below2); or provide an additional
special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard,
fountain, or public gathering area.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 13
Page 13
(You advised us that the above Standards 1 and 2 are the only two standards under
BUILDING CHARACTER AND MASSING that are applicable. Accordingly, above, I have
shown Standard 3 with strike-through and have not addressed it.)
RMC 4-11-010 (DEFINITIONS A) defines “articulation” as follows:
ARTICULATION: The giving of emphasis to architectural elements (like
windows, balconies, entries, etc.) that create a complementary pattern or
rhythm dividing large buildings into smaller identifiable pieces.
(Emphasis added.)
RMC 4-11-010 (DEFINITIONS A) defines “modulation” as follows:
MODULATION: A measured and proportioned inflection or setback in a
building’s face that breaks up an otherwise larger flat vertical plane into
multiple offset sub-elements so as to reduce the apparent bulk.
Because (1) the text of Standard 1 only requires modulation or articulation [“at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40')”], (2) our original design included extensive articulation,
(3) adding the modulation that you requested would be costly and would not enhance
the addition’s function, and (4) (in view of the proposed addition’s layout connection
with Building C) substantial building modulation was already provided by the interface
with Building C (although not meeting a 40-foot maximum interval), Strada initially
opposed adding modulation.
However, to avoid a dispute over the modulation issue and with the hope that Strada’s
cooperation with the City on that matter would be reciprocated with an approval of our
request for a modification of the glass window and doors standards, as you know my
client had me redesign and send on April 19, 2017 a revised proposed footprint of the
addition to provide modulation meeting a maximum 40-foot modulation interval along
the addition’s north facade. After a follow-up call with you, I made further adjustments
to the footprint, which were emailed you the next day to meet your requests concerning
modulation of the east facade and to narrow the north-south dimension by a foot so
that the west facade would not exceed 40 feet.
On April 24, 2017, I emailed you a revised version of Sheet A3.1 (Exterior Elevations and
Building Sections)—see Figure 1 on the next page. That version of Sheet 3.1 (1) was
based on the horizontal facade modulation we had by then agreed on, (2) depicts both
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 14
Page 14
some of the original plus additional proposed articulated parts of the building’s facades
(including the proposed concrete panels, the matching of Building C’s horizontal reveals
within the face of the proposed precast concrete wall panels, and the vertical reveals
where the concrete wall panels are joined), and (3) indicates (a) the stepped parapet
with a cornice along the top of all the addition’s three perimeter walls and (b) the
cornice being more accentuated near each of the addition’s wall corners.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 15
Page 15
Figure 1 [Version of Sheet A3.1 (Elevations) emailed to Angelea Weihs on 04-24-2017]
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 16
Page 16
After you and I discussed revised Sheet A3.1 by phone, I prepared some concept design
graphics to better illustrate for you what the appearance of the proposed building will
look like with the revised design of the addition’s facades. I completed on April 26, 2017
and emailed you on April 27 both (1) a facade design concept elevations sheet (see
Figure 2, on the next page, for a reduction of it) depicting all three of the addition’s
facades and (2) a design concept perspective sheet (see Figure 3, on the page following
the next page, for a reduction of that sheet) to provide you a three-dimensional
perspective of the proposed design focusing on the addition’s proposed north and west
facades (the two facades that to some extent will be visible to the public).
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 17
Page 17
Figure 2 (April 26, 2017 Facade Design Concept Elevations)
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 18
Page 18
Figure 3 (April 26, 2017 Design Concept Perspective Sketch)
Along with my April 27, 2017 email transmitting those two sheets, I attached (1) a PDF
of a vendor color guide for the brand of prefinished metal panels that Strada proposes
to use in a metal storefront system on part of the building’s north facade to simulate
windows and (2) a PDF of a detail of the storefront system itself. That afternoon, David
Halinen and I had a three-way call with you during which I (a) explained and discussed
with you the design reflected on these concept graphics sheets I prepared, (b) explained
the metal panels, and (c) explained the storefront system. David Halinen and I also
discussed with you why we believe that, with the addition of the modulation and the
many other design features that Strada added, Strada is “going the extra mile” and the
project now (i) goes well beyond the requirements of Building Character and Massing
Standards 1 and 2 and (ii) qualifies Strada’s proposal for a modification from the
GROUND LEVEL DETAILS section’s transparent window/door standards (discussed
below), a modification that is critically important to the proposal so as not to
compromise the life-safety security purpose of the proposed garage by using glass
windows. Figure 4, below, a floor plan excerpt from Sheet A2.1 (current as of May 11,
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 19
Page 19
2017), depicts the proposed modulation of the addition’s facades that we reached
agreement with you on before our April 27 call.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 20
Page 20
Figure 4 [Floor Plan from Sheet A2.1 depicting the addition’s modulation (05-11-2017)]
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 21
Page 21
Near the end of our April 27 three-way call, you explained that the following Monday
(May 1) you were planning to attend a Planning Division design review committee
meeting with committee leaders Chip Vincent, Jennifer Henning, and Vanessa Dolbee
and that you would go over with them the materials that I emailed you, solicit their
comments, and speak to us again on Monday afternoon or Tuesday to advise us of the
outcome of the committee meeting discussion on the project. Because I was
unavailable to be on such a call, David Halinen phoned you late in the afternoon of May
1 to inquire concerning the outcome of the design review committee meeting. He
learned from you that all the committee leaders liked the revised design I emailed you
on April 27, that Jennifer Henning requested that she be provided with a small sample of
the proposed metal panel material to examine, and that we were encouraged to apply
for a design modification for use of the panels as a substitute for the glazing. My client
and I appreciated learning of that feedback.
Note that the design concept for the building addition’s exterior character expresses
harmony with the existing building by using precast concrete panels like those of the
existing building. Specifically, the addition’s precast panels, which are to have a
maximum height of 19’-6”, are proposed to match the finish texture and reveals of the
tilt-up pre-cast concrete panel construction of the existing building. That matching is
important from a design perspective.
Note also that the precast panels are structurally limited to an 8-foot width. This width
dimension is used to create an articulated facade with a rhythm of vertical joints at 8-
foot-wide intervals set between narrower panels at each corner of the addition as is the
case with the panels of the existing building.
Summarization of Compliance with BUILDING
CHARACTER AND MASSING Standards 1 and 2
To summarize for purposes of documenting the proposal’s compliance with Standard 1,
you can see from Figure 3, above, and Figure 5, below, several types of articulation on
the building addition’s proposed north facade.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 22
Page 22
First, note the reveals. Page 7 of an online “designer’s notebook” entitled Design
Factors Affecting Aesthetics of Architectural Precast Concrete published by the
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute 2 explains that
A reveal or demarcation feature is a groove or a step in a panel face
generally used to create a desired architectural effect, or separating
finishes or concrete mixtures…. Reveals can take vertical, horizontal,
diagonal, or curved forms, as well as any combination of these, and there
may be several bands of them on a building. They can be narrow and
delicate or deep, wide, and bold; they can offer a rectangular profile or
take on any sectional shape desired, such as concave or triangular.
*
*
*
Used effectively to create shadow lines, reveals offer the simplest way to
reduce or change the building’s apparent visual scale or to keep the visual
appearance from focusing on any differences that may occur in texture or
coloration between panels.
As can be seen on Figure 3, above, and Figure 5, below, on the addition’s proposed
north face (and as also can be seen on Figure 3, above, and Figure 8, below, concerning
the proposed west facade and on Figure 9, below, concerning the proposed east
facade), (1) vertical reveals are proposed at the control joints between the precast
concrete panels and (2) horizontal reveals are proposed across the entirety of the
addition’s north facade. At the left and right sides of the elevation view in Figure 5, you
can also see how those horizontal reveals on the addition’s north facade are to match
up with the horizontal reveals of the east portion and west portion of the existing
building’s north facade that will exist beyond the addition’s east and west facades
following the addition’s completion.
2 http://www.gateprecast.com/assets/files/designers-notebook/DN-3%20Precast%20Reveals.pdf
(accessed 05-11-2017).
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 23
Page 23
Figure 5 [North Elevation from Sheet A3.1 (as of 05-15-2017)
Second, as further proposed articulation of the addition’s north facade, Figures 3 and 5,
above, depict two proposed horizontally-abutting trellis/window-panel-like elements
that are to make use of a commercial storefront system that will match the storefront
window systems used on all sides of the existing building. Patina green pre-finished
metal panels are proposed to be set into anodized bronze storefront system frames.
(See the concept sketch in Figure 6, below. See also Figure 7, below, which is a
manufacturer’s illustration of a segment of a storefront system metal frame. In that
figure, I have added labeling to point out that metal panels can be used instead of the
glass depicted in the manufacturer’s illustration.)
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 24
Page 24
Figure 6 [Faux Window Frame Trellis Element Concept Sketch (05-11-2017)]
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 25
Page 25
Figure 7 [Storefront Metal Frame Panel Inserts Illustration (product Illustration
with leader lines and notes below the illustration box added by Cornerstone)]
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 26
Page 26
Third, for additional articulation on the addition’s north facade, three decorative
exterior lights and (beneath the westernmost of those three exteriors lights) a metal
access door to the garage addition are proposed to be installed. (For the conceptual
locations of these three lights and the proposed location of the door, see Figures 3 and
5, above.)
Fourth, along the entirety of the top edge of each of the addition’s three facades, a
stepped, extended parapet with metal coping is proposed along with cornices at each of
the facade corners. (See Figures 3 and 5, above, and Figures 8 and 9, below.)
Figure 8 [West Elevation from Sheet A3.1 (as of 05-15-2017)]
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 27
Page 27
Figure 9 [East Elevation from Sheet A3.1 (as of 05-15-2017)]
The proposed addition’s west facade also provides articulation in conformance with
Standard 1. As can be seen on Figures 3 and 8, above, the proposed articulation is
comprised of
(1) a vertical reveal near the center of the west facade,
(2) horizontal reveals (which will match up with the horizontal reveals
of the west portion of the existing building’s north facade that will
exist following construction of the addition),
(3) two overhead garage doors (each of which will have evenly spaced
horizontal lines from top to bottom),
(4) a 12-inch-high, metal channel header above each of the two garage
doors painted to match the patina green of the proposed faux
window panels on the addition’s north facade,
(5) a stepped extended parapet with a metal-coping-topped-cornice
along the entire top edge and with accentuated cornices at each of
the facade’s wall corners, and
(6) a decorative exterior light between the garage doors at a height
slightly below the top of the garage doors.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 28
Page 28
(You agreed that no modulation was required along the addition’s west facade after we
narrowed that facade’s previously proposed width to 40 feet.)
Furthermore, the proposed addition’s east facade also provides articulation in full
conformity with Standard 1, as well as modulation that complies with the 40-foot
interval statement of Standard 1 and the modulation minimum geometry provisions of
Standard 2. As can be seen on Figure 9, above, the extent of the proposed east facade’s
articulation [which greatly exceeds Standard 1’s requirement of articulation “at intervals
of no more than forty feet (40')”] is comprised of the following:
(1) vertical reveals associated with the control joints at each vertical
edge of the 8-foot-wide concrete wall panels (with narrower panels
on the ends of the east facade),
(2) horizontal reveals (which will match up with the horizontal reveals
of the north portion of the existing building’s east facade),
(3) a metal access door and frame (with a 12-inch-high metal channel
header above the door),
(4) a stepped extended parapet with metal coping along the entire top
edge and with cornices at each of the facade’s corners, and
(5) two decorative exterior lights.
Strada is “going the extra mile” in providing this extensive articulation and the
modulation to the addition’s east facade because (a) the east facade’s view is
substantially blocked from public view by trees in the west margin of the Valley Freeway
right-of-way and by trees and shrubs within the 10-foot-wide landscape strip along the
east edge of the subject parcel and (b) [in view of the BUILDING CHARACTER AND
MASSING STATEMENT’S intent statement (an intent statement which indicates that the
intent is to ensure that “all sides of a building which can be seen by the public are
visually interesting”) (emphasis added)] this east facade articulation and modulation
does not appear to be needed under Standards 1 and 2.
To recap, the articulation on each of the addition’s three facades greatly exceeds
Standard 1’s requirement of articulation “at intervals of no more than forty feet (40'),”
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 29
Page 29
and in regard to modulation, all three of the proposed addition’s facades meet (1) the
40-foot maximum interval described in Standard 1 and (2) the modulation minimum
geometry provisions of Standard 2.
________________________
[JER: I INSERTED THIS UNERLINING ABOVE TO CREATE A SUBTLE BREAK BETWEEN
SECTIONS (AND DID THIS ELSEWHERE BELOW AS WELL). DELETE THIS COMMENT.]
RMC 4-3-100E.5’s Intent statement, Guidelines, and Standards (those standards
applicable to design District ‘D’) concerning “GROUND LEVEL DETAILS” state (with
emphasis added) as follows:
GROUND LEVEL DETAILS
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended human-
scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a building
within near or distant public view have visual interest.
Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and
horizontal wood siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made visibly
prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large
entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting (illustration below). Detail features should also be
used, to include things such as decorative entry paving, street furniture (benches, etc.),
and/or public art.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 30
Page 30
Standards:
All
Districts
All of the following are required:
1 Human-scaled elements such as a lighting fixture, trellis, or other landscape
feature shall be provided along the facade’s ground floor.
2 Any facade visible to the public shall be comprised of at least fifty percent
(50%) transparent windows and/or doors for at least the portion of the ground
floor facade that is between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above ground (as
measured on the true elevation).
3 Upper portions of building facades shall have clear windows with visibility into
and out of the building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade
and energy efficiency. The minimum amount of light transmittance for windows
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 31
Page 31
shall be fifty percent (50%).
4 Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather
than permanent displays.
5 Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear
glazing.
All of the following are prohibited:
1 Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film.
2 Untreated blank walls visible from public streets, sidewalks, or interior
pedestrian pathways.
a. A wall (including building facades and retaining walls) is considered a blank
wall if:
i. It is a ground floor wall or portion of a ground floor wall over six feet
(6') in height, has a horizontal length greater than fifteen feet (15'), and
does not include a window, door, building modulation or other
architectural detailing; or
ii. Any portion of a ground floor wall has a surface area of four hundred
(400) square feet or greater and does not include a window, door,
building modulation or other architectural detailing.
b. If blank walls are required or unavoidable, they shall be treated. The
treatment shall be proportional to the wall and use one or more of the
following (illustration below):
i. A planting bed at least five feet (5') in width abutting the blank wall that
contains trees, shrubs, evergreen ground cover, or vines;
ii. Trellis or other vine supports with evergreen climbing vines;
iii. Architectural detailing such as reveals, contrasting materials, or other
special detailing that meets the intent of this standard;
iv. Artwork, such as bas-relief sculpture, mural, or similar; or
v. Seating area with special paving and seasonal planting.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 32
Page 32
Summarization of Compliance with GROUND
LEVEL DETAILS Standards 1 and 2 (Other Than
the Transparent Window/Door Standards)
The proposed design of each of the proposed addition’s three facades fully complies
with GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standard 1 for human-scale elements. Note
that this requirement standard is inherently flexible as to elements due to its coupling of
the broad phrase “human-scale elements” with the phrase “such as,” a phrase which
indicates that the enumerated items following it are not intended to be an exhaustive
listing of such elements.
Concerning the addition’s north facade, requirement Standard 1 is met because (as can
be seen on Figure 5, above) three lighting fixtures, two horizontally-abutting
trellis/window-panel-like elements, and a service entry door are proposed. In addition,
as shown on an excerpt from project Sheet L1.1 [Landscaping Planting Plan and Details
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 33
Page 33
(see Figure 10, below)], two specimen 5’-6’ high by 6-8’ long Daphnoides Rhododendron
and a specimen 8’-9’ high Hollywood Juniper tree are to be transplanted into the
proposed landscape strip along the north facade’s north edge, a landscape strip (which
will be 7 feet wide in part and 5 feet wide along the facade’s 2-foot-deep modulation
“bump-out”) that is also to be planted with 18 Soft Caress Mahonia plants.
Figure 10 Excerpt from Sheet L1.1 (Landscape Planting Plan and Details) as of 05-16-2017
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 34
Page 34
Concerning the addition’s west facade, requirement Standard 1 is met because of the
following:
(1) the lighting fixture proposed on that facade,
(2) the two proposed overhead garage doors,
(3) the proposed landscape planting strip that will extend west
approximately 16 feet from the west facade’s north edge along the
north edge of the garage addition’s entrance driveway aisle (see
Figure 10, above),
(4) the proposed transplant installation of a specimen 5’-6’-high by 6-
8’-long Daphnoides Rhododendron in a new landscape area to be
created between (a) the proposed north end of the existing
sidewalk along the existing building’s west facade and (b) the
northernmost end of the existing building’s west facade [a
landscape area that will be along part of the east portion of the
south edge of the garage addition’s entrance driveway aisle near
the addition’s west facade (see Figure 10, above)] and
(5) the retention of three existing Otto Luyken shrubs in the north part
of the existing landscape area to remain on the west side of the
north end of the existing sidewalk along the existing building’s west
facade3 [a planting area along the westerly part of the south edge
of the garage addition’s entrance driveway aisle (see Figure 10,
above)].
Concerning the addition’s east facade, requirement Standard 1 is met because of the
following:
(a) the two lighting fixtures proposed on that facade (see Figure 9,
3 Note that because of (1) the proposed installation of a Fire Department connection to the existing
water vault in the southwestern portion of this existing landscape area and (2) the need to keep this
connection accessible for use in the event of a fire emergency, the other existing plants and shrubs in
this existing landscaping area are to be removed and the portion of the planter that they were in is to be
replaced with 23 Wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens) creeping, rhizomatous shrublets.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 35
Page 35
above),
(b) the proposed entry door (see Figure 9, above),
(c) the proposed new landscape strip along the north half of that
facade, into which (i) a specimen 8’-9’-high Hollywood Juniper tree
is proposed to be transplanted and (ii) eight Soft Caress Mahonia
plants are proposed to be planted (see Figure 10, above), and
(d) the existing landscape strip proposed to be retained that extends
east from part of the south end of the proposed new walkway along
the addition’s east facade between (i) the north end of the east part
of the existing building’s north facade that is to remain and (ii) the
south side of an existing segment of sidewalk to the north of it [an
existing landscape strip that contains an existing 5’-6’-high by 6’-8’-
long Daphnoides Rhododendron and existing Autumn Fern plants
(see Figure 10, above)].
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 36
Page 36
Regarding above-quoted GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standard 2, the
combined length of the 300-foot-long west facade of the existing building and of the 42-
foot-long proposed addition of the west facade 4 (a facade visible to the public from East
Valley Road) will easily comply with that standard. Based on my personal inspection of
the entire length of the existing building’s west facade on April 22, 2017, I (1) found that
all the doors and windows along that facade are transparent glass doors and windows
and (2) estimate that along the existing west facade between a height of four feet (4')
and eight feet (8') above the ground, roughly 75 percent of the total length of that
existing 300-lineal-foot facade (±225 lineal feet) currently consists of such windows and
doors. By adding a total of 42 feet to the existing length of the west facade to account
for the proposed addition (i.e., 40 feet along the addition’s westernmost face plus 2
additional feet for the modulating “bump-out” from the addition’s north facade), the
building’s total length will only increase to 342 feet. Because the estimated ±225-lineal-
foot total length of the transparent glass between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above
the ground along the total west facade will remain unchanged with the proposed
addition (because no glass windows or windows are proposed on the addition’s west
façade), the percentage of such transparent glass windows and doors along the entire
length of the building once the addition is completed will be equal to ±225/342 = ±65.8
percent, a percentage that will still far exceed Standard 2’s fifty percent (50%) minimum
requirement.
Note that the east facade of the proposed addition is not subject to Standard 2 because
the east facade is not visible to the public due to trees and shrubs along the freeway
side (the east side) of the building—see Photos 1 and 3, above]. However, even if that
was not the case, the combined length of the existing building’s east facade and the
proposed addition’s west facade would also easily comply with Standard 2 because,
based on my April 22, 2017 inspection of the existing building’s east facade, I estimate
that roughly 75 percent of that existing east facade’s total length currently consists of
transparent glass windows and doors between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above
the ground. The current length of the east facade is the same as the current length of
the west facade, and the proposed 42-foot-long addition will increase the length of the
overall east facade following completion of the addition to the same length as the
overall west facade. Thus, as is the case with the west facade, I estimate the percentage
of transparent glass windows and doors between four feet (4') and eight feet (8') above
the ground along the entire length of the combined existing building’s east facade and
4 The addition’s proposed westernmost face is 40 feet wide and the west-facing width of the proposed
modulating “bump-out” from the addition’s north façade will be 2 feet for a total west facade width of
42 feet.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 37
Page 37
the 42-foot addition will be ±65.8 percent, the same percentage as along the west
facade, far in excess of the 50 percent minimum called for in Standard 2.
Please note that the north facade cannot strictly comply with GROUND LEVEL DETAILS
Standard 2 or Standard 5 because compliance would mean introduction of transparent
windows and/or transparent doors in that facade. Glass windows or doors would create
unreasonable security risk to Strada’s tenant, U.S. Bank, thereby defeating the
addition’s purpose to serve as a high-security two-bay parking garage. Accordingly, as
an alternative to transparent glass windows or doors, Strada hereby seeks the flexibility
described in Subsection 2 of RMC 4-3-100A (PURPOSE) (a subsection quoted on pages 7
to 8, above) to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the
standards through the use of the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS guidelines and intent
statement. (See the next paragraph, and see the modification request section of this
letter starting on page 45, below.)
However, the innovative faux window design I have created and that Strada hereby
proposes as a substitute for strict compliance with the calls of GROUND LEVEL DETAILS
Requirement Standards 2 and 5 for transparent glass windows and/or doors in the north
façade is comprised of two horizontally abutting sets of two side-by-side patina green
pre-finished metal panel columns (with three panels per column) set into anodized
bronze storefront system frames to provide the architectural impression of windows on
the north facade. (See the concept sketch in Figure 6, above. See also Figure 7, above,
which is a manufacturer’s illustration of a segment of a storefront system metal frame
that I have annotated.) The faux window design is akin to what is called for in Standard
2 (but without the glass) because the design provides both (1) wall treatment with
human-scale dimensions typical of those of commercial windows and (2) a system of
framing (anodized bronze framing that is used as part of the existing storefront window
systems in the existing building). The proposed patina green faux window panels will
have a rich-looking color (see Figures 6 and 7, above).
Please realize that in combination with
(1) the proposed expanded building’s overall north facade modulation
[modulation that will result from both (a) the proposed two-foot-
deep “bump-out” and (b) the fact that the addition will extend
neither to the west face nor east face of the existing building’s
north end but will instead be substantially offset from those two
faces of the existing building (with the addition’s west face to be
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 38
Page 38
offset more than 5 feet from the existing building’s west face and
with the addition’s east face to be offset about 19 feet from the
existing building’s east face)],
(2) the stepped, extended parapet with cornice that is capped with
coping proposed along the entirety of the top edge of each of the
addition’s three facades along with accentuated cornices capped
with coping of the corners of each of the facade’s walls (see Figures
3, 5, 8, and 9, above),
(3) the extensive proposed articulation of the north facade described
on pages 22 to 26, above, and
(4) the proposed new landscape strip to be installed along the
addition’s north facade (see the bottom of page 32 through page
33, above),
the patina green trellis/window-like element 5 proposed to be constructed as part of the
addition will ensure that the building’s north facade will
(i) have a human-scale character (consistent with the Intent
statement);
(ii) be visually interesting (consistent with the Intent statement); and
(iii) be using a color variation and panel material (the patina green
panels for the trellis/window-panel-like element, a color and a
material that so far has not been used on the existing building), as
encouraged by the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Guidelines.6
5 That element’s framing and patina green panels will create a visual image having similarities to that of
a green-vine-covered trellis.
6 Note that the first sentence of the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Guidelines (the sentence that states, “The
use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and horizontal wood siding is
encouraged,” which is the only applicable sentence of those guidelines in the subject circumstance) uses
the phrase “such as.” The “such as” phrase implies that the list of material variations merely sets forth
examples and is not an exclusive list.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 39
Page 39
In addition, the unique design of the subject proposed addition, a design that is urban in
character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building materials that
are suitable for Renton’s climate, is also supported and encouraged by the following
intent statement that is set forth in the code at the start of RMC 4-3-100E.5 (Building
Architectural Design),7 an intent statement that reads as follows:
Intent: To encourage building design that is unique and urban in
character, comfortable on a human scale, and uses appropriate building
materials that are suitable for the Pacific Northwest climate and to
discourage franchise retail architecture.
(Emphasis added.)
Moving on to GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standard 3, I contend that that
standard is inapplicable because (a) the proposed addition is merely single-story and (b)
there is thus no upper portion(s) of building facade(s) for this standard to apply to.
Nevertheless, in the event the City disagrees with this contention, a modification to
Standard 3 is requested below.
GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standard 4 is inapplicable because no display
windows are proposed (since no merchandise is offered as the addition is not being
proposed for retail use).
Because Strada is proposing a storefront system on the addition’s north facade, a
modification to GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standard 5 is requested below
because the proposed storefront will contain no glass.
Note also that “transparent windows or doors” are not even mentioned in the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS
Guidelines or in the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Intent statement. Without such a mention in the
Guidelines or Intent statement, (a) neither the Guidelines nor the Intent statement mandate any
“transparent windows and doors” and (b) there is not even any suggestion in the Guidelines or Intent
statement that “transparent windows and doors” are important or desirable features. That being the
case, use of other variations of the materials that I have proposed as part of the design should be
sufficient to fairly meet the Guidelines and the Intent statement and qualify the proposal for the
modification requested below.
7 That intent statement covers all four of the following topics that are addressed in RMC 4-3-100E.5
(Building Architectural Design) and in this letter: namely, (1) Building Character and Massing, (2) Ground
Level Details, (3) Building Roof Lines, and (4) Building Materials.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 40
Page 40
The proposed addition complies with GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Prohibition Standard 1
because no tinted glass, dark glass, or highly reflective (mirror-type) glass and film is
proposed.
The proposed addition complies with GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Prohibition Standard 2
because no “blank wall(s)” are proposed that meet the elements of the test for such
walls set forth in subsection a of that standard. I explain why below.
First, note that Standard 2 subsection a.i’s element of the “blank wall(s)” test is not met
under the circumstances of the proposed addition because each of the addition’s three
facades (west, east, and north) includes at least one door (and, in the case of the west
facade, two overhead garage doors).
Second, note that Standard 2 subsection a.ii’s element of the “blank wall(s)” test is not
met because each surface area of four hundred (400) square feet or greater of the
addition’s three facades (west, east, and north) includes at least a door, building
modulation, and/or other architectural detailing. Architectural detailing includes
articulation. In addition to all of the other above-demonstrated elements of articulation
on the addition’s three facades, (1) each one of the proposed vertical reveals along the
vertical joints between the precast concrete wall panels discussed above (which will
match the design of the vertical reveals in the facades of the existing building) is an
articulation element and (2) each one of the proposed horizontal reveals (which will
match the horizontal reveals in the facades of the existing building) is also an
articulation element. Figures 5, 8, and 9 make clear that the proposed reveals by
themselves are located within every such facade surface area of four hundred (400)
square feet or greater. (Note that above-quoted Prohibition Standard 2 subsection b.iii
explicitly indicates that the term “architectural detailing” includes, among other things,
“reveals.”)
________________________
RMC 4-3-100E.5’s Intent statement, Guidelines, and Standards (those standards
applicable to design District D) concerning “GROUND LEVEL DETAILS” state (with
emphasis added) as follows:
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 41
Page 41
BUILDING ROOF LINES
Intent: To ensure that roof forms provide distinctive profiles and interest consistent
with an urban project and contribute to the visual continuity of the district.
Guidelines: Building roof lines shall be varied and include architectural elements to add
visual interest to the building.
Standards:
Districts
A, C,
and D
The following is required:
At least one of the following elements shall be used to create varied and
interesting roof profiles (illustration below):
1. Extended parapets;
2. Feature elements projecting above parapets;
3. Projected cornices;
4. Pitched or sloped roofs.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 42
Page 42
5. Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall not be visible to pedestrians.
6. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched
roofs with a minimum slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or
interesting roof forms that break up the massiveness of an uninterrupted
sloping roof.
Standard 6 of the six above-quoted BUILDING ROOF LINES standards is the only one of
those standards that you did not indicate was applicable. Accordingly, I have shown
Standard 6, above, with strike-through and have not addressed it.
The proposed addition will conform with above-quoted BUILDING ROOF LINES Standard
1 because, along the entirety of the top edge of each of the addition’s three facades, a
stepped, extended parapet with metal coping is proposed along with an extended
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 43
Page 43
cornice at each of the facade corners. (See Figures 3, 5, 8, and 9, above.)
The proposed addition will conform with Standard 5 because no roof-mounted
mechanical equipment is proposed on the addition’s roof.
Standard 6 is inapplicable because no concrete block walls are proposed to be use.
________________________
RMC 4-3-100E.5’s Intent statement, Guidelines, and Standards (those standards
applicable to design District D) concerning “BUILDING MATERIALS” state (with emphasis
added) as follows:
BUILDING MATERIALS
Intent: To ensure high standards of quality and effective maintenance over time and
encourage the use of materials that reduce the visual bulk of large buildings, as well as
to encourage the use of materials that add visual interest to the neighborhood.
Guidelines: Building materials are an important and integral part of the architectural
design of a building that is attractive and of high quality. Material variation shall be
used to create visual appeal and eliminate monotony of facades. This shall occur on all
facades in a consistent manner. High quality materials shall be used. If materials like
concrete or block walls are used they shall be enhanced to create variation and
enhance their visual appeal.
Standards:
All Districts
All of the following are required:
1. All sides of buildings visible from a street,
pathway, parking area, or open space shall
be finished with the same building
materials, detailing, and color scheme. A
different treatment may be used if the
materials are of the same quality.
2. All buildings shall use material variations
such as colors, brick or metal banding,
patterns or textural changes.
3. Materials, individually or in combination,
shall have texture, pattern, and be detailed
on all visible facades.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 44
Page 44
4. Materials shall be durable, high quality,
and consistent with more traditional urban
development, such as brick, integrally
colored concrete masonry, pre-finished
metal, stone, steel, glass and cast-in-place
concrete.
5. If concrete is used, walls shall be enhanced
by techniques such as texturing, reveals,
and/or coloring with a concrete coating or
admixture.
6. If concrete block walls are used, they shall
be enhanced with integral color, textured
blocks and colored mortar, decorative
bond pattern and/or shall incorporate
other masonry materials.
Districts A, C, and D
The following is required:
All buildings shall use material variations such as colors,
brick or metal banding, patterns, or textural changes.
(Emphasis added.)
Standard 1, above, for all Design Districts, and the sole additional standard for Design
Districts A, C, and D of the above-quoted BUILDING MATERIALS standards are the only
ones of the above-quoted standards that you did not indicate were applicable.
Accordingly, above, I have shown Standard 1 and the sole additional standard for Design
Districts A, C, and D with strike-through and have not addressed them.
The proposed addition will conform with above-quoted BUILDING MATERIALS Standard
2 because proposed material variations to be used will include the following:
(1) the proposed patina-green-finished metal panels to be set into
anodized bronze storefront system frames on the addition’s north
facade [this will embody variations in material type (metal), color,
and texture],
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 45
Page 45
(2) the two overhead garage doors that are proposed on the west
facade (which will have horizontal lines along their joints),
(3) a 12-inch-high metal channel header above each of the two garage
doors, each of which is to be painted patina green to match the
color of the proposed faux window panels on the addition’s north
façade,
(4) the roof line’s proposed stepped parapets with cornices along each
of the three facades, and
(5) the patterns associated with the vertical and horizontal reveals on
all three of the facades.
The proposed addition will conform with above-quoted BUILDING MATERIALS Standard
3 because on all three proposed facades, the precast concrete panels, individually and in
combination, shall have texture and, by virtue of the vertical and horizontal reveals of
those panels, shall be detailed.
In view of the proposed precast concrete panels, the pre-finished, manufactured metal
overhead garage doors, the pre-finished 12-inch-high metal channel header above each
of the two garage doors, the pre-finished metal entrance door on the north facade, the
pre-finished metal entrance door on the east facade, and the pre-finished colored metal
panels that are proposed to be set into anodized bronze storefront system frames on
the north facade, the proposed addition shall be durable, high quality, and consistent
with more traditional urban development and will thus conform with above-quoted
BUILDING MATERIALS Standard 4.
The proposed addition will conform with above-quoted BUILDING MATERIALS Standard
5 because, on all three proposed facades, the precast concrete panels shall be enhanced
(consistent with the precast concrete panels on the existing building) by texture and
vertical and horizontal reveals.
BUILDING MATERIALS Standard 6 is inapplicable because no concrete block walls are
proposed to be used.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 46
Page 46
Reasons Why Strada’s Request for an Urban Design Regulations
Modification of the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Transparent
Window/Door Standards Should Be Granted
Please see page 37, above, for a detailed description of why the proposed addition’s
north facade cannot strictly comply with GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Standard 2 or Standard
5 (transparent glass standards) without defeating the whole high-security purpose of the
addition because compliance would mean introduction of transparent windows and/or
doors in that facade. Glass windows or doors would create unreasonable security risk to
Strada’s tenant, U.S. Bank, thereby defeating the addition’s purpose to serve as a high-
security two-bay truck parking garage. Accordingly, as an alternative to transparent glass
windows or doors to the addition, Strada hereby requests the flexibility described in
Subsection 2 of RMC 4-3-100A (PURPOSE), which is quoted on pages 7 to 8, above, to seek
to meet the required element in a manner that is different from the standards through the
use of the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS guidelines and the intent statement. (See the next
paragraph and see the analysis of the modification criteria that follows it.)
As I have explained above, the innovative faux window design I have created and that
Strada hereby proposes as a substitute for strict compliance with the calls of GROUND
LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standards 2 and 5 for transparent glass windows and/or
doors is comprised of two horizontally abutting sets of two side-by-side patina green
pre-finished metal panel columns (with three panels per column) set into anodized
bronze storefront system frames to provide the architectural impression of windows on
the north facade. (See the concept sketch in Figure 6, above. See also Figure 7, above,
which is a manufacturer’s illustration of a segment of a storefront system metal frame
that I have annotated.) The design is akin to what is called for in Standard 2 (but
without the glass) because the design provides both (1) wall treatment with human-
scale dimensions typical of those of commercial windows and (2) a system of framing
(anodized bronze framing that is used as part of the existing storefront window systems
in the existing building). The proposed patina green faux window panels will have a
rich-looking color (see Figures 6 and 7, above).
Below, I address each of the issues (criteria a through n) set forth in Section 6
(Justification for the Modification Request) of the City’s Submittal Requirements for
URBAN DESIGN REGULATION MODIFICATION, placing the greatest emphasis on the
particular criteria that you told me and David Halinen during our phone call late during
the week of May 8, 2017 were most pertinent in view of the circumstances of the
subject modification proposal.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 47
Page 47
Criterion a: “The intent and purpose of the governing land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan is met.”
Response to Criterion a:
The governing land use designation of the subject parcel of land is the Employment Area
(EA) designation. From what I can tell, the intent and purpose of that designation are
set forth in Policy L19 and Goal L-K, which state as follows:
Policy L-19: Employment Areas – Place areas primarily used for industrial
development, or a mix of commercial and industrial uses such as office,
industrial, warehousing, and manufacturing, with access to transportation
networks and transit, within the Employment Area (EA) Land Use
Designation. Employment Areas provide a significant economic
development and employment base for the City. Maintain a variety and
balance of uses through zoning which promotes the gradual transition of
uses on sites with good access and visibility to more intensive commercial
and office uses.
Goal L-K: Provide an energetic business environment for commercial
activity providing a range of service, office, commercial, and mixed use
residential uses that enhance the City’s employment and tax base along
arterial streets and in Centers.
Granting the modification for the proposed faux window design alternative and
approving the expansion project will enable U.S. Bank to conduct special administrative
office operations requiring a secure two-bay truck garage and remain a tenant in the
existing building. Granting the modification will thus meet the intent and purpose of
Goal L-K concerning providing a range of office uses that enhance the City’s employment
and tax base along arterial streets.
Criterion b: “The modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Renton
Municipal Code.”
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 48
Page 48
Response to Criterion b:
The intent and purpose of the Renton Municipal Code relevant to the proposed
modification from GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Requirement Standards 2 and 5 are set forth
in the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Intent and Guidelines, which state as follows:
GROUND LEVEL DETAILS
Intent: To ensure that buildings are visually interesting and reinforce the intended
human-scale character of the pedestrian environment; and ensure that all sides of a
building within near or distant public view have visual interest.
Guidelines: The use of material variations such as colors, brick, shingles, stucco, and
horizontal wood siding is encouraged. The primary building entrance should be made
visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang,
trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting (illustration below). Detail
features should also be used, to include things such as decorative entry paving, street
furniture (benches, etc.), and/or public art.
The faux window design alternative comports with the Intent statement, because the
design is very visually interesting and will reinforce the intended human-scale character
of the pedestrian environment. This alternative provides every bit as much visual
interest and provides the very same human scale character to the north façade as would
a storefront system with transparent glass because the subject proposal uses the very
same type of storefront system that is used in the existing building (without transparent
glass), meeting all of Standard 2’s dimensional requirements.
The faux window design alternative comports with the Guidelines statement because (1)
the design uses material variations [namely, (a) prefinished metal panels in the
storefront system and (b) a pre-finished patina green color] and (2) material variations
are encouraged by this Guidelines statement.
Further, there is not even a mention of windows (transparent glass or otherwise) in
either the Intent statement or the Guidelines statement. Thus, it cannot fairly be
contended that either of those statements is calling for windows, let alone transparent
glass windows.
With the proposed design alternative, the applicant is proposing something that will
very much look like the windows that Standards 2 and 5 call for, a design that fully
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 49
Page 49
comports with the Intent and Guidelines statements despite the fact that those
statements don’t call for any windows or anything that looks like windows.
Criterion c: “The modification substantially implements the policy direction of the
policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community
Design Element.”
Response to Criterion c:
I do not see any “policy direction” of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Element that bears on the subject modification request.
Note that the current Comprehensive Plan does not appear to contain a Community
Design Element.
Criterion d: “The modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these
policies and objectives.”
Response to Criterion d:
Because none of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Element have any bearing on the transparent glass windows issues or the proposed
alternative design, Criterion d is inapplicable.
Criterion e: “The modification will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance,
environmental protection and maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based
upon sound engineering judgment.”
Response to Criterion e:
The proposed faux window design alternative for the north façade satisfies Criterion e
because (1) as explained above in response to Criterion b the design meets the
objectives set forth in the Code’s GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Intent and Guidelines
statements and (2) (under above-quoted RMC 4-3-100A.2.g) “[i[f ... an alternative to the
prescriptive standard meets the applicable guidelines and intent, the applicant shall not
be required to demonstrate compliance with the standard.”
Further, as a design element to be viewed by the public, the faux window design
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 50
Page 50
alternative will be as safe or safer, functional or more functional, comparable in
appearance, as fully protective of the environment, and more maintainable than
transparent glass windows contemplated by Standards 2 and 5.
Criterion f: “The modification will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity.”
Response to Criterion f:
The proposed faux window design alternative obviously will not be injurious to other
propert(ies) in the vicinity.
Criterion g: “The modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the Code.”
Response to Criterion g:
See Response to Criterion b, above.
Criterion h: “The modification can be shown to be justified and required for the use and
situation intended.”
Response to Criterion h:
This has been demonstrated above.
Criterion i: “The modification will obviously not create adverse impacts to other
propert(ies) in the vicinity.”
Response to Criterion i:
The proposed faux window design alternative obviously will not create adverse impacts
to other propert(ies) in the vicinity.
Criterion j: “The project as a whole meets the intent of the minimum standards and
guidelines in subsections E, F, G, H, I, J, and K of the design regulations.”
Response to Criterion j:
See Response to Criterion b, above.
City of Renton Planning Division
Attn: Angelea Weihs, Associate Planner
May 19, 2017
Page 51
Page 51
Criterion k: “The requested modification meets the intent of the applicable design
standard.”
Response to Criterion k:
I take Criterion k’s “the intent of the applicable design standard” to mean the intent
stated in the GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Intent statement. As such, the proposed faux
window design alternative meets that intent—see Response to Criterion b, above. Also,
see Response to Criterion e, above.
Criterion l: “The modification will not have a detrimental effect on nearby properties and
the City as a whole.”
Response to Criterion l:
In view of the totality of this letter, above, it would be impossible for the proposed faux
window design alternative on this small addition’s north façade to have a “detrimental
effect on nearby properties and the City as a whole.”
Criterion m: “The deviation manifests high quality design.”
Response to Criterion m:
The proposed faux window alternative design certainly manifests high quality. See
Figures 6 and 7, above. See also the explanation of the design, above, and see Response
to Criterion b, above. In addition, see Response to Criterion e, above.
Criterion n: “The modification will enhance the pedestrian environment on the abutting
and/or adjacent streets and/or pathways.”
Response to Criterion n:
The high quality alternative design will enhance the pedestrian environment from the
sidewalks on abutting East Valley Road.
________________________
For the above reasons, (1) [with the exception of GROUND LEVEL DETAILS Standards 2