Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_EX_Decision_409_Whitworth_080204February 4, 2008 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Minutes I ■ U APPLICANT/CONTACT.- LOCATION: PPLICANT/CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT Kayser Olaf Willey 835 S 143`a Place Burien, WA 98168 Capital Homes LLC Chris Cirillo 16603-107`h Place NE Woodinville, WA 98072 409 Whitworth (Condominiums) Site Approval File No.: LUA 07-125, SA -H, ECF 409 Whitworth Avenue S Applicant requested Site Plan approval for the construction of a 5 -story condominium building on a 7,199 square foot property. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on January 3, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Development Services Report, examining available information on file with the application, field checking the property and surrounding area; the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The fallowing minutes are a summary of the January 8, 2008 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, January 8, 2008, at 9:01 a.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the original application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Vicinity Map Exhibit No. 3: Existing Conditions Plan Exhibit No. 4: Aerial Photograph of Neighborhood Exhibit No. 5: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 6: East Facade 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SAA1, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 2 Exhibit No. 7: East and South Building Elevations Exhibit No. 8: West and North Building Elevations Exhibit No. 9: Garage Plan Exhibit No. 10: Residential Level 1 Plan Exhibit No. 11: Residential Level 2 Pian Exhibit No. 12: Residential Level 3 Plan Exhibit No. 13: Residential Level 4 Plan Exhibit No. 14: Site Plan Exhibit No. 15: Roof Plan Exhibit No. 16: Landscape Design Exhibit No. 17: Photograph of Site from Whitworth Showing South Property Stake Exhibit No. 18: Photograph of Site from Whitworth Showing North Property Stake Exhibit No. 19: Jeff Wolfson Letter in support of project by Mr. Exhibit No. 20: Mr_ Olaf Willey Printed copy of Statement read by Exhibit No. 21: Seven letters faxed to Ms. Johanson in support of this project. The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project is a condominium project and is located in the Center Downtown zone. The zoning changes at the Burlington Northern/Santa Fe Railroad tracks and becomes residential. The property fronts on Whitworth Avenue South and is backed by an alley that runs north/soutb between Whitworth and Shattuck_ It would be located on a single-family residential lot that is one lot south of 4"` Place. McClendon's is located to the west and St. Anthony's Catholic Church is located to the north, on the north side of 4"` Place. The neighborhood has been developed with single-family residential uses since the 1920's, there are some conversions of single-family properties into other uses including office space. The project would have parking on the ground level with four levels of residential units above that. Vehicles would access the parking garage via the alley, there is no access to the garage via Whitworth. There would be open space on the roof level for the residents' use. The building would be approximately 60 -feet tall with articulation on the front and rear facades. The north and south facades would be less articulated. The building would be built up to the north and south property lines to within two feet. There would be setbacks from the east and west property lines. A split rail fence would screen the refuse area and three surface parking areas outside the parking garage. The parking requirement is for 21 spaces, three of the required spaces would need to be outside of the building. The density of the project would be 97 du/acre, building area would be 22,542 square feet including the parking level. The alley would be improved from the southwest corner of the property to S 4"' Place at a width of 16 feet. Fire, Parks and Transportation Fees would be imposed on this project. An avigation easement would also be required from the applicant. 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 3 The Environmental Review Committee submitted a Determination of Non -Significance -- Mitigated with 1 I measures. No appeals were filed. The project is located in the Center Downtown Designation zone and meets the Land Use Element and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. There are some conflicts between policies and development standards throughout this zone. There are requirements to preserve trees, however, there are no trees on the property. It has been asked that an expanded landscape plan be submitted showing the addition of trees and other landscaping_ There are no applicable lot size, width or depth standards in this zone. The limitation of coverage on the property by a structure is 75% when parking is provided within the structure. The proposed structure would cover approximately 74% of the property. There are front and rear setbacks, the side setbacks are one foot eleven inches and one foot on the north and south sides. There would be parking and refuse collection in the rear setback, that does not seem to be in conflict with the project. Landscaping has been planned for, and it has been suggested that a trellis and some vines be planted along the side of the building. The front yard setback requirement is 10 feet from the property line for the first 25 feet of building height and above 25 feet the building is to be setback 15 feet from the property line. For this particular project the front setback for the first 25 feet is 10 feet, but it shows a setback of 13'8-112" and levels 2 through 5 would be setback 15'1 - 1/2" from the east property line. The Examiner inquired if the front yard setback could be changed through a modification further down the process, as what happened with the project on Williams about a block from City Hall, where the building was redesigned after a public hearing, the public accepted the project and expected the design to be followed, and now the building has turned into something very different. Elizabeth Higgins stated that this project has had several minor modifications. They are required to adhere to the minimum setback requirements. They could request a variance. The criteria for site plan review includes mitigation of impacts to surrounding property uses. There are some conflicts between the criteria and what is allowed. This is the first significant impact on a neighborhood in this area. It will be a noticeable and visible impact. There definitely has been an attempt to have the face of the building compatible with the character of the neighborhood, it's not just a blank wall on the eastern side. People living on either side are most likely going to remain. Smaller lots probably could not be developed with a project of this size. They did meet with the project proponent and suggest they try to incorporate the abutting properties into the project, especially the property to the north. It appears that the property to the north could not be developed with a similar project due to the size. Photographs of the site showing the north and south property stakes were viewed showing how the proposed building would impact these adjacent properties. One of the criteria states that there should not be any blank wails, it is not clear if blank walls are permitted on sidewalls. The Environmental Review Committee was concerned about the increase in traffic in the neighborhood. This is a dead end street and alley. There would be a restriction on parking on S 46' Place, so that cars pulling out of the alley or out of Whitworth would have clear visibility on S 4`h Place. A homeowners association was recommended for the maintenance of the building and property 409 'Whitworth Site Approval File No_: LUA-07-125 SA-H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 4 Kent Smutnv, TSA Architects, 10800 NE 8"' Street, Ste. 300, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated they are the architects for this project. He brought boards that show rough views of the project. They illustrate how the building is being stepped. The building steps back 1' I I" from the north property line, further back on that same side the building is basically at the property line. A trellis could be constructed on the side of the building to help lessen the impact of that wall. Further to the west on the north side, reveals could be added to help minimize the. impact. Above the parking level the middle of the north wall is set back 5 feet from the property line. The northeast comer of the building is stepped back 12 feet from the north property line and the northwest corner is set back 9 feet from the north property line. At the southeast corner at ground level the set back is one foot and again a trellis and vine could be added to lessen the impact. Seven and a half feet back from the south property line in the front is the elevator shaft. The top floor on the southwest corner is set back 19 feet from the south property line. Above the 25-foot level the areas projecting out from the building are bay windows and overhangs. ,teff Wolfson, PO Box 6602, Kent, WA 98064 stated that he is a landowner in the Benson Hill Community. The planned development meets all building criteria for the downtown corridor development and offers future homeowners easy access to downtown Renton and all basic needs and services. All necessary utilities are available to this project. The creation of affordable housing will bring new homeowners to the downtown area. Olaf Willey, 103 Logan Avenue S, Renton, WA 98057 stated that he is the owner of this property and read a statement in support of this development, which will make more affordable housing available, Five out of 14 properties on the street are owner occupied. Downtown living affords the residents access to all the City has to offer. Amrik Kamoh, 9423 NE 130' Place, Kirkland, WA 98034 stated that he owns property at 109 Logan Avenue and supports the development of this property. He feels this improvement is important to the people in the downtown area, more people will revitalize the downtown businesses in the City of Renton. Wilma Kozai, 415 Whitworth Avenue S, Renton, WA 98057 stated that she lives in the house just south of this " proposed condominium. This large structure will be one foot away from her house, she will no longer have any privacy in her yard with the decks that will protrude from the building. The elevator will be located very close and she has no idea of the noise when that runs day and night. She was also concerned about the back alley and her access to her garage, there is very little room now for her to access her garage, but with the construction of this building, she may have even less access. She further questioned if this site was in the Downtown Core or the Mixed Use Zone, there seems to be a conflict in the staff report. No one ever talked to her about selling her property, or how this building would impact her, or anything else. She does not approve of this project. Matt Deacy, was speaking for his parents Mr. and Mrs. Harold Deacy who reside at 407 Whitworth Avenue S, the house to the north of this project. There are several references in the report to the adverse impacts to their property. Harold Deacy has lived in this house his entire life, his father build the house in 1925. Harold Deacy's hobby for the last 50 years has been gardening, this construction will block the sun from his house and will eliminate the use and enjoyment of his property. They recognize that the zoning has changed and developments are allowed, they just didn't realize how great the negative impact would be on them. No one has trade any offers to them nor have they been contacted by anyone. They had no idea that this project was even being considered. They request that the City not approve this project. Louis Barei, 614 S 186' Street, Renton, WA 98055 stated that he owns the house at 417 Whitworth Avenue S, the house was built in 1926 by his grandfather. He understands that progress must be made in the City of 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECP February 4, 2008 Page 5 Renton, however his primary objection is that the very first development is an interior lot impacting everybody both north and south. Even though he is two houses away, the impact will still be on his property_ The property value is only part of the issue, the quality of life is very important. If you own property next to a condominium and people don't want to live next to it, that diminishes the value of the property. It seems reasonable that in the future people will not want to be living in his rental property. The increase in property value will only increase property taxes. This project damages rather than enhances his property. The neighborhoods have to be thought about and protected, it is the duty of the City to do that and if the City does not do that, then they are all lost. What is allowed does not always turn out to be what is necessary. Elizabeth Higgins stated that the proposed set back from Ms. Kozai's property is about a foot and a half from the property line not from the house to the south. She does have a side yard of about four feet. If a building is constructed right on the property line, would there need to be a construction easement on the abutting properties in order for the forms to be put in for the pouring of concrete for foundations. The Examiner stated that he was not sure, one would presume that there were be various easements between property owners. There also has to be maintenance, anything built on that property, the construction crew cannot intrude into the neighboring property to the north or south to build this without the owner's permission. Elizabeth Hi ins further stated that when she said she understood that other people in the neighborhood wanted to stay in their homes, that was from the calls and letters that were sent to her. Site did not initiate any conversations with the neighbors. It also was her understanding that the neighbors were approached and conversations had been had regarding this project. Rosalie Higgins, 417 Whitworth Avenue S., Renton, WA 98057 stated she has lived there 16 years, she attends St. Anthony's Church and enjoy all her neighbors. Her daughter lives next door at 419 Whitworth and another daughter owns the house at 420 Whitworth. This project is way too huge for the neighborhood. It will impact the traffic and parking. Many times when she comes home from grocery shopping and there is no available parking on her street. Access to the alley is blocked with people picking up their children from school. Stephanie Clayey, 419 Whitworth Avenue S, Renton, WA 98057 commented on the statement made by Elizabeth Higgins regarding the project on Williams Ave and the fact that new zoning has gone through to prohibit future structures from protruding onto the sidewalk in that neighborhood. Ms. Higgins further stated that she sees that happening to this neighborhood. That would mean that once this project is built, the zoning could be changed and then even more so the property values would go down. Also in the Renton Magazine the last issue talked about the Historic Districts within the City of Renton, it listed the Renton High School, Uptown Glassworks, Old Milwaukee Station, and of the downtown Renton churches all which are within a one -mile radius of our neighborhood. Is there a way that the Washington State Historic District could have the neighborhood preserved as part of the original history of Renton. The Examiner stated he could not answer that, they would have to speak to someone else. Timing is a great issue, the applicant is working with the owner and they are entitled to develop at the current zoning, it is called vesting. In reviewing the project he may determine that it should be scaled back because it doesn't integrate well in the existing community or the project may be determined appropriate given the fact that the Comprehensive Plan does suggest change for this area and the first change is always very dramatic, he will consider the testimony along with the building form, its massing and scale and make a decision. The neighbors or applicant both have the right to ask for a reconsideration of the decision if they think there was an error made, or they may appeal to the Council and point out anything wrong with the project, the Council could overturn the Examiner's decision, and beyond that, people could take the whole matter to court. 409 Whitworth Site Approval Pile No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 6 Katherine Deacy, 407 Whitworth Avenue S, Renton, WA 98057 stated that she wonders what the City is thinking, they told the residents to fight this all the way. Then they told the developers to go higher, they started with three stories. Kayren Kittrick Development Services stated that discussions from the ERC showed concern about the sight distance coming off the alley. She was interested in hearing from Rosalie Higgins that the St. Anthony's parents are parking over there and that is not supposed to be happening. The alley would be paved out to 16 feet, but that does not allow parking, it is for access only. During construction, access is required to be maintained, however they will be allowed to have traffic control plans, during paving, etc. there will be times when the alley will have to be closed in order to work on it. Olaf Willey stated that on May 17, he had Trish Johanson, his realtor, submit an offer to Deacy's, they spoke with them and the offer was mailed, his mother went to the local retirement community and spoke with them and checked into an annuity so they not only could purchase the property outright for 5500,000. There was an option of selling both properties at the same time which would have meant $450 plus another $100 in cash at closing, which would have been $550,000 plus they would have gotten an annuity and the money would have paid for retirement for 10 years and at the end of that period, there would have been a lump sum left. This was more than a simple purchase and sale agreement. He did not speak to the neighbors to the south, he was out of the loop at that point. Matt Deacy stated that his parents never got anything in the mail about an offer, they had talked to Trish with the understanding that there was a party that was interested in the house, but they did not realize that they were dealing with a developer. The original story was that this individual had bought the house so his parents could move up from Portland. They had no idea that a 5 -story building would be built next door to them. Trish Johanson, Realtor, 6161 NE 175h, Ste. 200, Kenmore, WA 98028 stated that the person who purchased this property did want his parents who visited from Portland to stay there. Down the road things changed, there was an interested party in the property and that is where the developers came about. She further submitted faxed letters in support of this project. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 10:55 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The applicant, Capital Homes LLC, Chris Cirillo, filed a request for a Site Plan approval. 2. The yellow file containing the staff report, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation and other pertinent materials was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The Environmental Review Committee (ERC), the City's responsible official issued a Determination of Non -Significance - Mitigated (DNS -M). 4. The subject proposal was reviewed by all departments with an interest in the matter. 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 7 A number of neighboring property owners opposed the project as too large and tall and introducing too much traffic into the neighborhood. They were particularly concerned about shadowing and shading of adjacent parcels as well as the loss of privacy from a tall building overlooking their homes and private yard space. There was concern that such a large building would make other properties on the block less hospitable, both owner -occupied homes and rental units for tenants. 6. The subject site is located at 409 Whitworth Avenue South. The property is located on the west side of Whitworth one lot south of S 4th Place. An alley runs along the rear or west side of the lot and Shattuck Avenue South is located west of the alley. Whitworth is a deadend street in this location with the railroad tracks located south of the block. The alley also deadends to the south. 7. Saint Anthony's church is located north of S 4th Place. A single family home with a large south yard and garden is located north of the subject site. Single-family homes are located cast of the site across Whitworth and south of the subject site. West, across the alley, are additional single-family homes and an office. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of urban center - downtown uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. The subject site is currently zoned CD (Center Downtown). 10. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 156 enacted in May 1909. 11- The subject site is approximately 7,199 square feet. The parcel is 60 feet wide along Whitworth by 119.99 feet deep. 12. The subject site is level. There is no significant vegetation on the site. An existing two-story, single family home is located on the subject site. The home would be removed if the proposal were approved. 13. Access to the front of the property is along Whitworth on the east and to the rear of the parcel along the alley on the west side of the parcel. The alley is a partially improved roadway 16 feet wide. 14. The applicant proposes erecting a condominium complex on the subject site. The building would contain 16 residential units in a five -story (5 -story) building. 15. The building would be 60 feet 4-112 inches tall. The CD zone permits buildings 95 feet tall (with provisions for taller buildings). 16. The proposed building would cover 74 percent of the site. The zone permits 75 percent coverage when structured parking is used_ Most of the parking, 18 stalls, would be contained in a first -level garage, with three (3) surface parking stalls in the rear, outside of the building. 17. The front yard or east setback would be 13 feet 5-112 inches at ground level and 15 feet 1-112 inches above that. The front yard setback requirement in the CD zone is 10 feet from the property line for the first 25 feet of building height and above 25 feet the building is to be setback 15 feet from the property line. Projections of roofs and decks above ground would intrude into the setback approximately 2 to 4 feet, The proposed "projections" would require a variance, which has not been approved. 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, hCF February 4, 2008 Page 8 18. The side yard setbacks would be one foot on the south side and 1 foot 11 inches on the north side, at ground level. The setbacks would increase above ground level and vary due to articulations or modulations in the facades above the ground level. No side yard setbacks are required unless it would be along a street. The CD zone permits zero setbacks and allows buildings to attach to one another. 19. The rear or west side setback would be 15 feet 2-1/2 inches. It would be used for three surface parking stalls and garbage collection. No rear yard is required unless it abuts a residential zone. 20. The entire structure would contain 22,542 gross square feet. 21. Open space is provided within the building envelope on the south side of the 5th floor, 311 square feet, and the east side of the roof, 1,594 square feet. 22. The density for the building would be 97 dwelling units per acre. The CD zone permits a maximum density of 100 dwelling units per acre (and up to 150 with a Conditional Use Permit). 23. The building's exterior treatment would consist of split -face, 8 inch by 16 inch, cement masonry units (CMU) on the lower levels and Hardie siding and Hardie panels with 2 by 2 battens on the upper levels. The roofs would be shed or pitched with asphalt shingles. Vinyl framed windows would be provided with more windows on the east and west facades facing the street and alley and fewer windows on the north and south where future adjacent development could potentially block views. Balconies would be located on the east and west facades, again, opening out to the street and alley, respectively. The building will be articulated and will be stepping in on its upper stories. 24. The main entrance and elevator bay would have architectural features along Whitworth but the parking garage would be the dominant ground level element. It would have metal louvers over parking garage wall openings and a built-in planter box will provide some landscape screening of the parking garage facade. 25. The applicant has proposed incorporating three trees in the front yard area that staff noted are very small in size and not suited to an urban, five -story building. They proposed no street trees although code and comprehensive plan provisions require street trees. The applicant suggested that trellis elements could be included along the north facade to introduce some landscaping materials in this area. 26. The project would generate approximately 80 new daily vehicles trips with 6 peak hour trips in the a.m. and 7 peak hour trips in the p.m. 27. The subject site is located in the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and below the flight path to and from Renton Municipal Airport. It will not intrude into the airspace but will be affected by flight noise. Therefore, avigation easements would be required for each residential unit. 28. In addition to the Site Plan approval criteria, the subject site is subject to the District 'A' Urban Design Regulations. The design regulations contain both discretionary guidelines and mandatory minimum standards. 29. The City has adopted a series of policies and goals in its Comprehensive flan regarding development of urban and urban downtown areas. It also has adopted Urban Design Standards. Some of those policies and standards are shown below with particular emphasis supplied to those policies that address the type of development that is proposed in this case - a large-scale structure adjacent to older, small-scale homes: Policy LU -229. Encourage the most intensive development in the Downtown Pedestrian 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 9 District and Downtown Core with a transition to lower -scale commercial and residential projects in areas surrounding the Downtown Core. Policy CD -13.1: Project design, including Iocation of access and dimensions of yards and setbacks, should address privacy and quality of life on existing improved portions of sites. Rear and side yard setbacks should be maintained and not reduced to facilitate increased density. Policy CD -17: Development should be designed (e.g. site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking, and outdoor activity areas) to result in a _h quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration Policy CD -18: Projects should only be approved at the upper end of density ranges when the following criteria are fully addressed in project level submission. i) Trees are retained, relocated, or planted to create sufficient vegetative cover to provide a landscape amenity, shade, and high quality -walking environment in an urban context. ii) Lot size/configuration and lot coverage is sufficient to provide private recreation/outdoor space for each resulting lot. iii) Structures can be sited so that entry, window, and door locations create and maintain privacy on adjoining yards and buildings. Architectural and landscape design should: ❑ Prevent window and door openings lookin direct) into another structure, ❑ Prevent over -reliance on fencing, or ❑ Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a pattern that reduces provision of li ht visual separation, and/or re uire variances or modification of standards. Densi ma be reduced within the allowed range to bring projects into compliance with these criteria. Policy CD -25: Site design should address the effects of light, glare, noise, vegetation removal, and traffic in residential areas. Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Policy CD -40. Structures should be designed e.. building heil1lit, orientation materials color and bulk to miti ate potential adverse impacts, such as glare or shadows on adjacent less intense land uses and transportation corridors_ 30. Similarly, the provisions of the Site Plan Ordinance and those sections pertinent to the context of this project and its surroundings and emphasized below: Section 4-9-200 (A) (2). Site Plan Review: The purpose of the Site Plan process is the detailed 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECI7 Fel)ruary 4, 2008 Page 10 arrangement of project elements so as to be compatible with the physical characteristics of a site and with the surrounding area. An additional purpose of Site Plan is to ensure quality development consistent with City goals and policies. For those developments that do not require Master Plan first, Site PIan Review should occur at an early stage in the development of a project, when the scale, intensity and layout of a project are known. The intent of the tiered site development plan review process is to provide an opportunity to review projects at broad levels for the Master Plan and with increased specificity as development plans becomes refined to the level of Site Plan. Intent statements below shall guide review of the plans at specificity appropriate to the level of review. 1. To promote the orderliness of community growth, protect and enhance property values and minimize discordant and undesirable impacts of development both on- and off-site; 2. To promote high quality design meeting criteria set forth in the City's Urban Center Design Overlay, where applicable; 3. To protect and enhance the desirable aspects of the natural landscape and environmental features of the City; 4. To ensure convenience and safety of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to adjacent areas, and ensure that road and pedestrian circulation systems implement land use objectives for the zone in which the project occurs; 5. To promote coordination of public or quasi -public elements, such as walkways, driveways, paths, and landscaping within segments of larger developments and between individual developments; 6. To protect neiphborin2 owners and uses by assuring that reasonable provisions have been made for such matters as sound and si2lit buffers, light and air, and those other aspects of site plans which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; 7. To minimize conflicts that might otherwise be created by a mix of uses within allowed zones; 8. To provide for quality, multiple family or clustered housing while minimizing the impacts of high density, heavy traffic generation, and intense demands on City utilities and recreational facilities; 9. To provide a mechanism to more effectively meet the purposes and intent of the State Environmental Policy Act; 10. To supplement other land use regulations by addressing site plan elements not adequately covered elsewhere in the City Code and to avoid violation of the purpose and intent of those codes. (Ord. 3981, 4- 7-1986; Amd. Ord. 4802, 10-25-1999; Ord. 5028, 11-24-2003) (E) DECISION CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLANS: The Reviewing Official shall review and act upon plans based upon a finding that the proposal meets Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies and the criteria in this subsection and in subsection F of this Section, as applicable. These criteria also provide a frame of reference for the applicant in developing a site, but are not intended to discourage creativity and innovation. Review criteria include the following: 1. General Review Criteria for Both Master Plans and Site Plan 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 11 Review: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies. In determining compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, conformance to the objectives and policies of the specific land use designation shall be given consideration over citywide objectives and policies; b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; e. Conservation of area -wide property values; f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. Section RMC 4-9-200F: (F) ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: The interpretation of the following criteria, particularly references to the "intent of the zoning code," shall consider the purpose and intent of the applicable land use designation of the Land Use Element and the Objectives and Policies of the Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Community Design Element is specifically intended to guide the interpretation of issues concerning the site planning, architectural fit, landscaping, and the context of the project relative to the existing neighborhood. Approval of plans subject to these criteria requires the additional finding that the project complies with the intent and policies of the Land Use and Community Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. Review of Impacts to Surrounding Properties and Uses: a. Mitigation of undesirable impacts of proposed_ structures and site layouts that could impair the use or enjoyment or potential use of surrounding uses and structures and of the community; b. Mitigation of undesirable impacts when an overseale structure, in terms of size, bulk, height, and intensity, or site layout is permitted that violates Zoning Code standards and the policy direction adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and impairs the use, enjoyment or potential use of surrounding properties; c. Provision of a desirable transition and linkage between uses and to the street, utility, walkway, and trail systems in the surrounding area by the arrangement of landscaping, fencing and/or other buffering techniques, in order to prevent conflicts and to promote coordinated and planned benefit from, and access to, such elements; d. Consideration of placement and scale of proposed structures 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 12 in relation to the natural characteristics of a site in order to avoid over concentration of structures on a particular portion of a site such that they create a perception of greater height or bulk than intended under the spirit of the Zoning Code; e. Promotion of the efficient function of parking and service areas by effective location, design and screening, to provide integrated facilities between uses when beneficial, to promote urban layouts in appropriate zones, and to prevent unnecessary repetition and conflict between uses and service areas or facilities; f Mitigation of the unnecessary and avoidable impacts of new construction on views from existing buildings and future developable sites, recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features and of promoting urban settings in appropriate zones; g. Provision of effective screening from public streets and residential uses for all permitted outdoor storage areas (except auto and tuck sales), for surface -mounted utility equipment, for rooftop equipment, and for all refuse and garbage containers, in order to promote an urban setting where appropriate and to preserve the effect and intent of screening or buffering otherwise required by the Zoning Code; and h. Consideration of placement and design of exterior lighting in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 31- Staff found that: "Privacy and quality of life on abutting lots would be affected, as would solar access, a quality of life issue, to property adjacent to the east" (Staff Report, Bottom of Page 10). At Page I 1 of the Staff Report is the following quote. "Site planning is the art and science of arranging structures, open space, and non-structural elements on land in a functional way so that the purpose of the development can be met, while keeping those elements in harmony with each other and with the context of the project." 32. Neighbors indicated that the proposal was initially not as tall but that some staff encouraged the applicant to increase the height of the proposal to achieve greater density_ CONCLUSIONS: The subject proposal presents a quandary_ An applicant is generally entitled to develop their property as it is zoned. This applicant was encouraged to develop it at maximum density. At the same time neighboring property owners and neighboring residents are also entitled to the continued enjoyment of their residences and these neighbors are entitled to the protections of regulations such as the Site Plan Ordinance and the Urban Design regulations that govern development. It is clear that the Zoning provisions for the CD zone permit the use, its bulk, its very narrow side yards and its height. If Zoning prevails and all else is for naught that would be the end of the review. But then what is the purpose of the Site Plan Review, permit and approval process? Why have Urban Design regulations? It is clear that other factors have to be considered before a use is permitted on property zoned CD. That is where factors such as height, scale, bulk, and impact on the neighboring property are to also be considered. That means balancing the applicant's right to develop the CD zoned site against the impacts that 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H., ECF February 4, 2008 Page 13 development of the site will have on the site and its neighbors. 2. It seems appropriate at this juncture to note that the project appears to be generally well designed_ It steps back as it increases in height, it has included an interesting mixture of facade materials, it includes modulations and articulated surfaces and has varied rooflines. If the project had been proposed for Burnett Avenue South in the vicinity of South 3rd and 4th Streets, it would immediately blend in. The project has not been proposed for that generic Burrett Avenue location. It has been proposed on an interior lot at the very edge of the urban core. It would be 60 feet tall while its neighbors are basely 30 feet tall. It would be sandwiched in between two low-rise single-family homes. It would have very small side yards. It would have blank wall elements facing its northerly and southerly neighbors. It would shade those homes and block light and would peer into the private yards of those adjacent homes. 2. The question is how does one encourage the redevelopment of an area, community or in the most intimate situation, Iike this block to meet the policies and goals enunciated in the comprehensive plan without ripping apart the fabric of the community. The answer is you can't redevelop an area while providing some protection to the adjacent properties unless you exercise the discretion afforded by the Site Plan Ordinance and Urban Design Standards. Staff seemed reluctant to do that given the sometimes conflicting goals set by the City in its policy documents. It is ironic that in the case of a Monopole 1 structure, the staff denied a permit on an administrative appeal and denied the monopole application on aesthetic reasons (File LUA-07-65, CU -A). In that case, the applicant was seeking to install an approximately 1-2 feet diameter pole that was 60 feet tall in place of a 40 -foot pole. The pole would have been approximately 30 feet taller than the surrounding single- family homes. Albeit, that proposal was located in an R-8, Single Family Residential zone, but nonetheless, the aesthetics are the central focus of the denial. Here we have a proposal to erect a five - story, 60 -foot tall condominium building that will span almost the width of the lot_ It will leave side yards less than two feet wide immediately adjacent to one-story and two story homes. The aesthetic impacts of the current proposal on its neighbors are huge. So does the fact that the zoning for the area allows 95 -foot tall structures outweigh all other factors? This office has to conclude that the Zoning Code is tempered by the additional requirements and specifically the Site Plan and Urban Design Review criteria. There are a number of criteria that basically govern the welding of the new with the old. 4. The review of this project cannot be done without noting that tradeoffs are required. Some of the tradeoffs would have to be on the applicant's part. That is because of the intrusive nature of this much taller, much bulkier building and that it is the first such conversion in this area, thereby making it most intrusive. But some tradeoffs would have to be on the part of the neighbors who have to accept that change to their rezoned neighborhood is inevitable. Balancing those competing elements should be governed by the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan, which is cited as one of the first references in the Site Plan criteria. It is easy to see why staff believed that the provisions of the comprehensive plan were not specifically codified since there are hundreds of policies and objectives and including each in the Site Plan Ordinance would be impossible. Rather, the Site Plan Ordinance does contain the following provision: "compatible with the comprehensive plan." 6. One of the issues here is that the comprehensive plan provides what some might term contradictory elements_ In this case for example those conflicts might be: to encourage change and redevelopment at an increased density and to transition to urban type uses, while at the same time, integrating new 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LLL A-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 14 development into an existing community and possibly not build out and completely diminish existing yards eliminating the separation between uses, avoid shadowing and shading. Also, the comprehensive plan suggests avoiding deterioration and blight. As noted by a number of neighbors, unless or until immediately abutting or nearby properties are redeveloped, this rather large, almost lot line to lot line complex will make the immediate neighborhood less desirable and may lead to fewer interested tenants or less desirable tenants. If the Zoning Code's land use designation is the only binding criteria for reviewing a project, that is, CD zoning permits buildings 95 feet tall, and requires no side yard (or Iot line to lot line), what, frankly, are the other criteria doing in the Site Plan Ordinance? What is the import of having provisions that asks about "mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses", "conservation of property values", "provision of adequate light and air"? What discretion results from these review criteria? If none and they are merely to describe such impacts and then let them play out, then they are a waste of ink and time. It would appear that these criteria do have significance and that significance is that if a project is not compatible with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, if a project creates impacts on "surrounding properties and uses", if a project does not provide "adequate light and air" the project may be conditioned to relieve some of those impacts or lessen the shadows and shading and it may even be denied_ It would seem that there is discretion to impose reasonable conditions on the project including reducing its overall size in order to reduce its impact on the community and more importantly on its immediate neighbors. The issue then is what can be done to reasonably mitigate the impacts of this over -scale building on its neighbors while allowing the applicant reasonable use of its CD -zoned property? Will reducing the height of the building one-story provide reasonable relief or is it merely a pacifier to the community? Attempting to reduce the width of the building and provide more spacious side yards might seen appropriate but would require a major, costly redesign. Any reduction in the building would probably reduce the number of units or the number of larger units. But a unit reduction might also reduce the necessary parking and could even free some ground floor space to the rear of the building and provide ground level open space to complement the open space on the upper floors in compliance with Policy CD -18. In addition, reducing the number of units will also reduce the amount of the traffic that the project will generate in the community and along the deadend alley that serves both the proposal and its single -family neighbors. Actually, as the transition of this area occurs, that very limited alley could very well be very taxed by traffic from much denser housing such as is now proposed. The applicant has proposed projections into setback areas that would require a variance or variances and that is not appropriate given the directions of Policy CD -18: "Prevent projections of building elements into required setbacks in a pattern that reduces provision of light, visual separation, and/or require variances or modification of standards." 10. Redevelopment of the site and the area is inevitable. Given that conclusion, the proposal does accomplish many of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and satisfies many of the criteria provided by the Site Plan Ordinance, which provides additional criteria for District A housing and even many of the criteria of the Urban Design Guidelines including its mandatory elements. But, as noted above in the Findings and the highlighted criteria, the highlighted policies and previous Conclusions, the proposal is too out -of -scale with its immediate community. It is not compatible and does not blend in. It does not transition development. It ungracefully wedges itself into an existing block of single-family homes. The proposal would blend in better, although, never perfectly, if it were reduced in height as noted above. Again, it would be an even better fit if it had larger setbacks from its neighbors, but here, this office has to agree with staff - the applicant is entitled to develop the site at an increased density and bulk and not put to too much additional expenditure of time and money to drastically redesign the entire 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECF February 4, 2008 Page 15 complex. Therefore, this office finds it reasonable to reduce the height of the building by one-story. The project will be approved as a four-story building, approximately 48 feet tall. 11. As shown above, reducing the height should reduce the need for the exterior parking. The applicant shall create a landscaped open space to the rear of the structure in place of its proposed exterior parking. The applicant shall also provide relief from its proposed blank walls along the north and south facades since blank walls are not permitted. The applicant shall also redesign those aspects of the building's projected elements that would have required a variance_ As noted, variances to permit such features are not favored. There are other ways to reduce a building's apparent bulk that do not actually increase its bulk or intrusions into required setbacks. 12. Finally, the public has been shown a building plan with articulations, modulations and certain design elements and other than reducing the height of the building and blending those upper elements where the reduction occurs, providing trellis or landscape relief along the north and south facades, the applicant shall not modify the building further. This office has noted at the hearing that the project along Williams between South 4th and South 5th was presented at Public Hearing as an entirely different design and slowly transitioned into a building that addresses the streets and its neighbors with blank concrete parking garage walls rather than ground floor entries that had plantings, steps and graceful design elements that blended with its surroundings. Similar modifications should not be permitted for this project. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall reduce the height of the building to four -stories and approximately 48 feet tall. 2. The applicant shall provide open space to the rear (west) of the building in place of the exterior parking. Other than reducing the height of the building and blending those upper elements where the reduction occurs, providing trellis or landscape relief along the north and south facades, the applicant shall not modify the building further with additional public hearings or a new site plan review. 4. An exterior lighting plan shall be submitted to the Development services Division for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A "material board" shall be submitted, prior to issuance of a building permit, to the attention of the Development Services Department plan reviewer. This submittal shall include materials, finishes, and colors for all exterior building elements. 6. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted, to the attention of the Development Services Department plan reviewer prior to issuance of a building permit, indicating the final landscaping of the project site. 7. A homeowners' association shall be created in order to establish maintenance responsibilities for all shared improvements. A draft of the document shall be submitted to the City of Renton Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Attorney and Property 409 VXrhitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, Lt:F February 4, 2008 Page 16 jw Services section prior to issuance of the building permit and shall be recorded prior to occupancy. ORDERED THIS 4`h day of February 2008. FRED J. KA AN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 4th day of February 2008 to the parties of record: Elizabeth Higgins Development Services City of Renton Chris Cirillo Capital Homes LLC 20314 132ne Avenue NE Woodinville, WA 98072 Rick & Stephanie Clarey 419 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Alice Deacy 11002 SE 176" St., Ste. E-201 Renton, WA 98055 Mr. & Mrs. Carl Nordstrom 409 Morris Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Kent Smutny TSA Architects 10800 NE 8"' Street, Ste. 300 Bellevue, WA 98004 Louis Barei 614S 18th Street Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick Development Services City of Renton Capital Homes LLC 16603 107th Place NE Bothell, WA 98011 Rosalie Higgins 417 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Pat & Theresa Deacy 14316 SE 184th PIace Renton, WA 98058 Philip Sheridan 2016 S Lucile Street Seattle, WA 98108 Phyllis Webb 249 Seneca Place NW Renton, WA 98057 Amrik Kamoh 9423 NE 130 Place Kirkland, WA 98034 TRANSMITTED THIS 4tn day of February 2008 to the following: Harold Deacy 407 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Kayser Olaf Willey 835 S 143"' Place Burien, WA 98168 Wilma Kozai 415 Whitworth Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Kelly Higgins 417 WhitiArorth Ave S Renton, WA 98057 Trish Johanson McCarthy GMAC Real Estate 6161 NE 175th St., Ste. 200 Kenmore, WA 98028 Jeff Wolfson PO Box 6602 Kent, WA 98064 Mayor Denis Law Robert Van Home, Deputy Fire Chief Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Planning Commission Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Transportation Division 409 Whitworth Site Approval File No.: LUA-07-125 SA -H, ECW February 4, 2008 Page 17 Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services Renton Reporter Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title W, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writin2 on or before 5:00 .m. February 1$ 2008. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen {14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper, An appeal to the City Council is governed by Title N, Chapter 8, Section 110, which requires that such appeal be filed with the City Clerk, accompanying a filing fee of $75.00 and meeting other specified requirements. Copies of this ordinance are available for inspection or purchase in the Finance Department, first floor of City Hall. An appeal must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., February 18, 2008. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be re uired prior to approval by City Council or final -processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. H - W � 4 H - W