Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Renton_Special_Care_Community_Conditional_Use_and_Site_Plan1 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Renton Special Care Community Conditional Use and Site Plan LUA17-000023, ECF, CUP, SA-A ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINAL DECISION Summary The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a 60 bed memory care facility with three 4,447 square foot residential cottages and one 2,778 square foot cottage for administrative services, all located 17033 108th Avenue SE. The applications are approved subject to conditions. The applicant’s request for a parking reduction to 26 parking spaces is approved for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(H), p. 5-6 of this decision. Testimony Jill Ding, senior planner for City of Renton, summarized the proposal. Kevin Carl, applicant representative, noted that the applicant operates memory care units in Lacey, University Place and Edgewood and that all those facilities have 20-23 parking spaces. All those facilities are operating at capacity and parking never exceeds 60% capacity except sometimes during staff switches and holidays. Brad Lincoln, applicant traffic consultant, testified there were two data sources justifying the requested 25% reduction in parking – ITE data for assisted living facilities, which includes memory care units (24 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 spaces) and a similar facility in Marysville at shift change and during PM peak hour, including vehicles parked in the frontage of the development (25 space peak, when prorated for size). The requested 26 spaces requested should meet parking demand. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Carl noted that memory care units have the same number of staff as assisted living facilities. The ITE category is a conservative estimate of parking demand because some assisted living residents drive whereas no memory care residents drive. Deliveries of kitchen supplies occur about a half-dozen times per week and there are no back up beepers since no backing of supply or trash trucks will be necessary. Dan Russell, owner of a daycare facility across 108th, testified that parking is a tremendous problem and he doesn’t want parking to overflow onto the street. Parking will be a problem during staff shift changes, since the two shifts will have to overlap for at least a half hour to confer over care services. Parking has been reduced for two other projects in the area and there isn’t enough parking. A stop light or some other traffic mitigation also needs to be placed at the intersection of SE 172nd and 108th. Trina Humphries, a staff member of Mr. Russell’s daycare business, noted that she had just received an email from Chris Barnes of the City who noted that no parking signs would be placed along 172nd. She wanted to make sure there would be follow through on placement of the signs. She noted that the peak hours for the daycare facility would be the same as those of the proposal. There are other projects being built that will further add to parking demand. She also wanted to know if there would be a fence placed on the south end of the project site. She wanted to know if there would be no blocking signs placed at the SE 172nd/108th intersection. The intersection is dangerous, a bicyclist has already been hit. Richard Niemi, neighboring property owner, was also concerned about parking. In any given day, there are 12-18 cars parked around the project site. Cars are parked in the bicycle lane. The road is very dangerous. The speed is posted at 35 and the average speed is around 45. He’s had near misses getting out of his driveway. In rebuttal, Jill Ding stated that she consulted with City engineering on Ex. 25 and that exhibit provides sufficient assurance that the requested 25% reduction in parking won’t result in any overflow parking. There will be some fencing along the courtyard to ensure that area is secure, so fending along the south property line isn’t necessary. Brianne Bannwarth, City public works, noted that another project has been required to install traffic mitigation at the 108th and SR 515 intersection that will alleviate queuing problems at the SE 172nd/108th intersection. The proposal itself doesn’t generate enough trips to justify any additional mitigation. Vanessa Dolbee, planning manager, noted that an eight-stall parking reduction was allowed for an apartment complex across 108th and another reduction may have been approved for another project along 108th that hasn’t been constructed yet. She noted that there is overflow parking with the apartment complex and that even if the reduction hadn’t been approved, there would be overflow parking. The City is working on the problem. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 Brad Lincoln, applicant representative, noted that at the Marysville site parking was assessed during shift change and during visitor times. The ITE had similar peak usage times. Kevin Carl noted that shift changes are scheduled between visitor times. He noted that the applicant is required to provide one parking space for every three residents, so that 20 of the required 34 parking spaces are for residents that don’t drive. The parking is only for visitors and employees. Exhibits The June 13, 2017 Staff Report Exhibits 1-21 identified at Page 2 of the staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 22: Staff powerpoint Exhibit 23: City of Renton COR maps Exhibit 24: Google earth aerial photographs Exhibit 25: June 12, 2017 letter from Brad Lincoln to Jill Ding FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Renton Special Care Community, LLC 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application on June 13, 2017 in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit and site plan approval for the construction of a 60-bed memory care facility with three 4,447 square foot residential cottages and one 2,778 square foot cottage for administrative services, all located 17033 108th Avenue SE. All proposed buildings are one story with a maximum height of 22 feet 2 inches. There are two driveway access points, one off 108th Ave SE and the other off SE 172nd Street, which connect via a driveway along the north and west property lines. The applicant is proposing 26 surface parking space and associated landscaping along the north and west property lines (abutting existing residential development) as well as within the site. Frontage improvements are proposed along the site's SE 172nd Street and 180th Ave SE frontages. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate infrastructure and public services as follows: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 A. Water and Sewer Service. Water and sewer service will be provided by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. Sewer and water certificates of availability will be required prior to the issuance of any construction permits. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide fire and police service. Fire and police department staff have determined that existing facilities are adequate to serve the development as conditioned with the payment of fire impact fees. C. Drainage. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design and technical drainage review submitted by the applicant are consistent with adopted city standards. The drainage review is entitled “Technical Information Report,” (“TIR”) prepared by LDC Inc, dated January, 2017 (Exhibit 4). The project is required to comply with the 2017 Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The development is required to provide enhanced water quality treatment prior to discharge. Project water quality treatment would consist of conveyance to a Filterra Bioretention system prior to connection to an existing 12-inch concrete stormwater main located in 108th Ave SE. As required by CORE Requirement #9 (CR#9), appropriate on-site BMPs will be required to help mitigate the new runoff created by the proposed development. A final drainage plan and drainage report will be required to be submitted with the civil construction permit application. The project proposes the use of Permeable Asphalt located in the parking stall areas of the parking lot for the proposed development pursuant to the requirements of CR#9. D. Parks/Open Space. There are no open space or parks requirements that apply to the proposal. However, to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential use, the proposal has been designed and conditioned to comply with the Residential Design and Open Spaces standards applicable in the R-14 zone (RMC 4-2-115E.3) and that enhanced landscaping be provided where compliance with the architectural design cannot be achieved. The proposed cottages are oriented towards an interior fenced courtyard, which will provide an opportunity for residents of the development to safely walk around and enjoy the open space area. E. Transportation and Circulation. Public works staff have determined that the preliminary design for traffic circulation and improvements satisfies applicable city standards. The applicant submitted a Traffic Analysis Report prepared by Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., dated June 23, 2016 (Exhibit 5). The report determined that the proposal would generate 150 new average daily trips with 7 new AM peak-hour trips and 12 new PM peak-hour trips. The City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development only requires a traffic impact analysis for developments that generate 20 or more AM or PM peak-hour trips. City staff testified that the traffic generated by the proposal does not justify any off-site traffic improvements and there is no evidence to the contrary. The applicant will be required as part of the building permit review process to pay for traffic impact fees, which are designed to make the applicant pay for 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 its proportionate share impacts to traffic system improvements. Given the nominal amount of traffic generated by the proposal and the associated staff recommendations, it is determined that the proposal is adequately mitigated for off- site traffic impacts. City staff have also determined that the proposal provides for safe and efficient interior vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The proposed driveway access would be located on the north and west portions of the site and would provide through access from SE 172nd Street to 108th Avenue SE. The proposed driveway would maintain the required 20-foot emergency access requirement as well as the 24-foot requirement for surface parking lots. Pedestrian access would be provided from the surface parking lot to the main entrance within Cottage A, additional pedestrian access would be provided within the interior courtyard and would be separated from vehicular access through the installation of fencing and landscaping. Pedestrian access is also provided from the surface parking lot to the sidewalk proposed within 108th avenue SE. To further facilitate pedestrian access through and around the project site, staff recommends, as a condition of approval, that a sidewalk connection be provided to SE 172nd Street along the western portion of the project site. . F. Schools. As a senior care facility, it is not anticipated that the proposal will create any increased demand for school services or facilities. G. Refuse and Recycling. RMC 4-4-090 sets the standard for adequate refuse and recycling facilities. Under this standard, based on a total gross building floor area of 17,306 square feet, the proposed development would be required to provide 34.6 square feet of recyclable deposit area and 69.2 square feet of refuse deposit area for a total area of 103.8 square feet. The applicant has proposed a refuse and recyclable deposit area, which would total 180 square feet and would exceed the 103.8 square feet required. The proposed refuse and recyclable deposit area would be located on the northwest corner of the project site and would have a setback of 10 feet from the west property line and 5 feet from the north property line. The proposed setbacks are less than the minimum 50-foot setback required from existing residential developments, however the 50-foot setback can be modified through site plan review per RMC 4-4-090C.3. The conditions of approval require the landscape buffer along the north property line be increased from 5 feet to 10 feet, which would increase the setback for the refuse and recyclable deposit area from 5 feet to 10. This landscape buffer would be comprised of a full sight obscuring landscaped visual barrier. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to install a 6-foot high cedar fence along the property line to further screen the neighboring properties from the proposed development. The proposed enclosure for the refuse area would be comprised of a 6-foot cedar enclosure with a charcoal grey metal roof. The proposed screening is found to adequately mitigate for the location of the refuse and recyclable deposit area to within 50 feet of the abutting residentially zoned properties. As such, a reduced setback to 10 feet is approved by this decision. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 H. Parking. The City’s parking standards set the standard for adequacy of parking. RMC 4-4- 080(E)(10)(d) requires that convalescent centers provide a minimum and maximum of 1 parking space for every 2 employees plus 1 space for every 3 beds. RMC 4-4-080(E)(10)(c) authorizes a twenty five percent (25%) reduction or increase from the minimum or maximum number of parking spaces through site plan review if the applicant can justify the modification. The applicant has indicated that the proposed convalescent center would employ a total of 27 full time employees and provide 60 beds. A total of 34 parking spaces would be required to be provided on-site. The applicant has requested a 25% reduction in the number of parking spaces required to 26 spaces. Neighboring property owners have voiced strong objection to the requested parking reduction, accurately claiming that overflow parking is a significant problem in the neighborhood. Staff also acknowledged that a parking reduction was granted to an apartment complex across 108th from the project site and that parking overflow has been a problem at that site. One person also testified that the parking overflow is dangerous in addition to a nuisance, since the parked vehicles often block bicycle lanes. For all these reasons, any reduction in parking must be closely scrutinized. Despite the numerous problems associated with parking in the area, the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the requested reduction in parking. At the hearing, the applicant provided a parking analysis, Ex. 25, that showed via ITE data and parking data of a similar facility in Marysville. The ITE data analysis is not particularly compelling. It showed that for assisted living facilities in general, average parking demand is 25 parking spaces. Given the critical parking issues at the project site, being able to accommodate average parking demand is not sufficient to justify a reduction in the number of required parking spaces. It is recognized that using a category of assisted living facilities in general is conservative given that numerous assisted living facility residents still drive while no residents in memory care units drive, but in the absence of any other information the ability to accommodate average demand is not sufficient to ensure there will be no overflow street parking on a daily basis. Peak demand is a more appropriate indicator for the adequacy of parking. In this regard, the Marysville data is more compelling, The Marysville data was taken over four time periods on June 8, 2017, aligned with schedule changes and peak visiting times. Peak demand, prorated for the size of the proposal, was determined to be 24 spaces. The 26 spaces proposed by the applicant doesn’t provide for a significant margin of error and more days of data collection dispersed throughout the year would have been more reassuring, but the data submitted by the applicant is the most compelling in the record and is sufficient to justify the requested reduction in parking stalls to 26 spaces. The requested modification to 26 parking spaces is approved by this decision. Per RMC 4-4-080F.11.a, bicycle parking spaces are required at 10% of the number of required off-street parking spaces. Based on the requirement for 26 parking spaces, a total 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 of 2.6 or 3 bicycle parking spaces would be required. The required bicycle parking spaces were not included on the submitted site plan materials. A condition of approval requires that the location of the required bicycle parking be provided on the site plan and that a detail of the bicycle parking be provided. I. Landscaping. City staff have determined that, with recommended conditions adopted by this decision, the proposal complies with the City’s landscaping standards. A conceptual landscape plan (Exhibit 15) was submitted with the formal land use application materials. The submitted landscape plan provides primarily lawn areas within the required 10-foot landscape strip proposed along the 108th Avenue SE and SE 172nd Street frontages. The proposal is to shift much of the shrub and ground cover plantings to the buildings and away from the public street frontage. The City’s requirements specify that a mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be provided within the first 10 feet abutting a public street frontage. In addition, the applicant has proposed a 10-foot fully sight-obscuring landscape barrier along the project site’s west property line, however this buffer shall also extend along the north property line to provide a landscape screen between the proposed cottages and the abutting residential development to the north. Based on the proposal for 26 parking spaces, the proposal would be required to provide 390 square feet of interior parking lot landscape per parking space. The proposal includes approximately 945 square feet of landscaping. In addition, 4 trees and 47 shrubs are required within the interior parking lot landscape area. The applicant proposes 8 trees. The applicant shall verify that the proposal complies with the requirement for 47 shrubs up to 50 percent of which may be deciduous. To bring the proposed landscaping into conformance with City standards, the conditions of approval require a detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D.12 be submitted at the time of Building Permit review. The detailed landscape plan shall include: a. A mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover within the 10-foot landscape strip abutting the SE 172nd Street and 108th Avenue SE street frontages; b. The proposed 10-foot full sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier along the west property line shall be required to extend along the north property line; and c. Verification that the interior parking lot landscaped areas include 1 shrub per 20 square feet of provided interior parking lot landscaping, of which 50 percent of the shrubs may be deciduous. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Aesthetics. According to the staff report, the proposal will not adversely affect neighboring views or view corridors to shorelines and Mount Rainer. As noted previously, the project is conditioned to comply with the design standards applicable to residential development in the R-14 zoning district and that enhanced landscaping be provided where compliance with the architectural design cannot be achieved. The applicant has indicated that the design of the residential cottages as single-story structures keeps the overall scale of the development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the proposed cottages would be separated by a secure, landscaped, centralized courtyard providing adequate spacing between the cottages and preventing an overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site. B. Compatibility. The proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. Surrounding uses are composed of a daycare facility to the south and single and multifamily development to the north, east and west. As indicated under aesthetics, above, the proposal is conditioned and designed to be aesthetically compatible with residential use. The use is also inherently of low intensity. As testified by the applicant, deliveries are limited to a half-dozen times per week. Beyond this minor truck traffic, no significant activity is contemplated at the site that would be out of character with the surrounding uses. C. Light and glare. The applicant has indicated that site lighting would be shielded and downward facing to prevent off site trespass of light and glare. In addition, the applicant has proposed a 6-foot cedar good neighbor fence and a landscaped buffer along the north and west property lines to buffer the neighboring single family residential development from the proposed cottages. The fenced, secured interior courtyard would further shield light and glare from moving beyond the core of the project site. D. Noise. As previously noted, the only activity that would generate any appreciable noise would be a half-dozen truck deliveries every week. These deliveries would not involve any backing so no back beeping would be involved. As further previously noted, the project will be heavily buffered from adjoining uses by both fencing and landscaping. Given these factors and the characteristics of facility residents, no significant noise is anticipated. E. Critical Areas and Natural Features. There are no significant critical areas mapped for the project site. Beyond critical areas, there are no other significant natural features except that the applicant is proposing to retain two existing big leaf maple trees on 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 site. Tree protection measures will be required to ensure grading and filling for the construction of the project do not impact the root systems of these trees. As to tree retention in general, the applicant submitted a Tree Retention Plan (Exhibit 15), Tree Retention Worksheet (Exhibit 16), and Arborist Report (Exhibit 17) with the project application materials. According to the submitted Tree Retention Worksheet, the project site has a total of 56 trees on site, of which 18 trees have been classified as dangerous and 20 are located within the proposed public right-of-way dedication areas, leaving a total of 18 significant trees remaining. The applicant is proposing to retain 2 trees, which is less than the 4 trees required to be retained. Therefore, a total of 24 inches of replacement trees, or 12 minimum 2 inch caliper trees would be required to be installed on t he project site. The submitted conceptual landscape plan includes the installation of 100 trees throughout the site, the proposed trees have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches for deciduous trees and 6 feet in height for evergreen. The proposed tree retention and replacement plan would comply with the City’s tree retention requirements. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. RMC 4-9-200(B)(2) requires site plan review for all development in the R-14 zone. RMC 4-2-060 provides that convalescent centers may be authorized in R-14 zones by hearing examiner conditional use permit. The site plan and conditional use permit applications have been consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. Site Plan Review (administrative) is a Type II permit and the hearing examiner conditional use permit is a Type III review pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). The conditional use Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” and therefore must be employed for the conditional use and site plan approval. 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. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Residential High Density (HD) Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the R-14 zoning classification. 3. Review Criteria. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D) and site plan review standards are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Applicable standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Design D review criteria are addressed through the conditional use and site plan criteria requiring compliance with City development standards Conditional Use The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards as outlined in Findings of Fact No. 15 and 16 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. The applicant indicates that prior to selecting the project site, a market analysis was conducted. According to the results of the analysis, there is currently a need for additional convalescent centers in the City of Renton and currently there is a shortage of supply in the immediate vicinity of the project site. There are no convalescent centers in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The proposal for a Convalescent Center on the project site would not result in an overconcentration of Convalescent Centers in this area of the City. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(H), the proposal includes parking that is consistent with applicable parking standards, which sets a legislative standard for adequate parking. RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposed pedestrian and vehicular circulation improvements provide for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. As further detailed in Finding No. 4(E), the proposal will not create any need for off-site traffic improvements beyond those funded by traffic impact fees to be paid by the applicant during building permit review. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As conditioned, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. As shown in the site plans for the proposal, Ex. 6, all undeveloped portions of the site are landscaped. Further, as shown in Ex. 6 and as conditioned the proposal incorporates significant perimeter landscaping to buffer adjacent properties. The criterion is 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. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4 and as conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan and development regulations. No design standards apply except as conditioned. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 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. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. The residences and administrative services are spread over four one story buildings, which fully mitigates any overconcentration of development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(E), the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Findings of Fact No. 4 and 5, proper screening and/or design location will be implemented to conceal refuse and recyclable areas and equipment. It is unclear if loading areas are proposed or what will be done to conceal them from view, so the conditions of approval will require the issue to be addressed during construction review. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not adversely impact any views of significant natural features. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A) and 4(I), the City’s landscaping standards assure that the proposal will minimize the aesthetic impacts of the project, which includes providing transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce light and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant noise or light impacts. 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 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 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. 14. The criterion quoted above are met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal has been well designed to provide for privacy and noise reduction. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale, spacing and orientation of the project could be modified to provide for more privacy and noise reduction without unreasonably interfering with the utility of the project. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal does not create any adverse aesthetic impacts and is fully compatible with adjoining uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposal provides for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation and is well integrated into adjoining vehicular and pedestrian improvements, thus providing for a well-integrated project scale and design with vehicular and pedestrian needs. As further determined in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, as conditioned, the landscaping for the proposal provides for better aesthetics and helps define parking areas and open spaces. There is nothing in the record to reasonably suggest that the scale of the project is incompatible with sunlight, prevailing winds or natural characteristics. 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. 15. The proposal as conditioned provides for adequate access and circulation and bicycle parking as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4. The staff report does not address loading and delivery, so that issue will be addressed by the conditions 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. 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 16. The proposal provides for a central courtyard in the center of the complex of cottages, which serves as a focal point of the project site and provides for recreation as required by the criterion above. 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. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(A). RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. There are no natural systems at the site or that would be affected by the proposal. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. 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. 20. The project is not phased. DECISION As conditioned below, the site plan and conditional use permit applications as depicted in Exhibit 19 satisfy all applicable permitting criteria for the reasons identified in the findings and conclusions of this decision. The parking modification to 26 parking spaces is approved as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(H). The setback modification to ten feet for the recycling enclosure is approved as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4(G). The site plan and conditional use permit are subject to the following conditions: 1. A Lot Combination shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit, combining the two parcels into one. 2. A detailed landscape plan meeting the requirements of RMC 4-8-120D.12 shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review. The detailed landscape plan shall include but is not limited to the following: a. A mix of trees, shrubs, and ground cover within the 10-foot landscape strip abutting the SE 172nd Street and 108th Avenue SE street frontages; 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 b. The proposed 10-foot full sight-obscuring landscape visual barrier along the west property line shall be required to extend along the north property line; and c. Verification that the interior parking lot landscaped areas include 1 shrub per 20 square feet of provided interior parking lot landscaping, of which 50 percent of the shrubs may be deciduous. The detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. The landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The applicant shall either reduce the height of the fence to comply with the 72-inch height requirement or submit an application for, and receive approval of, a Special Fence Permit in compliance with the standards outlined in RMC 4-4-040G. The applicant shall submit a revised fence detail or an approved Special Fence Permit to the Current Planning Project Manager prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 4. The design of the buildings shall be required to comply with the Residential Design portion of the Residential Design and Open Spaces standards applicable in the R-14 zone (RMC 4-2-115E.3) and enhanced landscaping be provided where compliance with the architectural design cannot be achieved. 5. A lighting plan shall be provided at the time of building permit review for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager. 6. The location of the required bicycle parking shall be provided on the site plan and a detail of the bicycle parking shall be provided. The revised site plan and bicycle parking detail shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval. 7. A sidewalk connection shall be provided to SE 172nd Street along the western portion of the project site. 8. All proposed loading areas shall be separated from parking and pedestrian areas and shall be located, designed and screened to minimize views from surrounding properties. DATED this 27th day of June, 2017. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 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 CONDITIONAL USE and SITE PLAN - 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 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.