Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_Cedar_River_Corporate_Park_070315.. Minntes APPLICANT: OWNER: CONTACT: LOCATION: SUMMARY OF REQUEST: SUMMARY OF ACTION: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON Tarragon, LLC 1000 Second Avenue, Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 Howard Seelig PO 13ox 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Jim Carleton AIIBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street, Ste. 300 Tacoma, WA 98403 Cedar River Corporate Park File No.: LUA 06-172, SA-H, ECF 20XX Lind Avenue SW March 15, 2007 Applicant requested Site Plan approval for the construction of four office/retail/light industrial buildings totaling 143,307 square feet in area on a 12.4-acre site. Development Services Recommendation: Approve with conditions DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the Examiner on February 27, 2007 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 following minutes are a summary of the March 6, 1007 hearing. The legal record is recorded 011 CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, at 9:00 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 Exhibit No. 2: Neighborhood Map application, proof of posting, proof of publication and other documentation oertinent to this reauest. Cedar River Corporate Park Sne Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March 15, 2007 Page 2 Exhibit No. 3: Site Plan Exhibit No. 5: Building; A Elevations Exhibit No. 7: Building C Elevations Exhibit No. 9: Zoning Map Exhibit No. 11: Revised Plans with City Conditions .. Exhibit No. 4: Composite Utility Plan Exhibit No. 6: Building; B Elevations Exhibit No. 8: Building D Elevations Exhibit No. 10: ERC Mitigation Measures The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jill Ding, Senior Planner, Development Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The project site is located to the east of Lind, south of SW 21" Street and north of SW 23'• Street. SW 21" and SW 23'' are both undeveloped public rights- of-way. The site is zoned Light Industrial (IL) and is located within the Employment Area -Valley of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. The site area totals 539,272 square feet (12.4 acres). The site is rectangular in shape with a small panhandle located on the northeastern comer of the property. There are no significant trees on the site. The proposal would result in the construction of four office retail or light industrial buildings. It would be a mixed-use flexible space. A 408 stall surface parking lot would be located around the perimeter of the buildings. Access is off East Valley Road and not the panhandle. The central portion of the site is proposed to be the truck loading area. The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated, which included 5 mitigation measures. No appeals were filed. The project is consistent with the Employment Area -Valley land use elements, community design elements and environmental elements. The proposal also complies with the Light Industrial development standards of lot coverage and setbacks. A 15-foot on-site landscape strip would be required along all street frontages. The submitted conceptual landscape plan proposes to install street trees along the Lind Avenue SW, SW 21" Street and SW 23'• Street frontages. The City's parking regulations have additional landscaping requirements. The submitted landscape plan appears to comply with the City's landscape requirements for surface parking lots and general landscaping plans. The scale, height and bulk of the proposed buildings are appropriate for the site and are anticipated to be compatible with existing and future development in the vicinity. The refuse and recyclable deposit area would be located to the rear of the proposed buildings on the central portion of the site and would be screened from public view. The proposed area is less than the minimum standards, therefore, it was recommended that additional area be provided or if there is to be a trash compactor which doesn't need as much area, the applicant should request a modification to reduce the refuse and recyclable requirements. The proposed parking for this size space appears to meet all parking requirements. There is not anticipated to be any adverse impacts to the area with the development of this site. This site would enhance the surrounding areas. Traffic and Fire Mitigation Fees were imposed on the project. • Cedar River Corporate Park Site Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March 15, 2007 Page 3 It is not anticipated that there would be any long-term impacts based on the uses that are proposed. The City has code requirements to help mitigate should they be needed. The existing drainage sheet flows across the site and into the existing on-site wetlands. The site must comply with the 2005 King County Surface Water Design Manual. There is a proposed storm water detention facility in the panhandle area on the northeastern portion of the project site. The project is located within the City of Renton water service area. There have been some changes in the project design, the applicant has worked with the Fire Department and with the Water Utility Depariment, the Water Utility has now indicated that the proposed JO-inch water main which loops around the buildings is acceptable. The project is also located within the City of Renton Sewer Service area, there is an 8-inch sewer main in Lind, an 8-inch extension onto the site would be required to serve the buildings. Paul McCormick, 1405 Point Fosdick Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335 stated that he represents AHBL the engineer and design firm of record. They have no problems with the two conditions of approval from staff. The site plan has been revised to show those two conditions. Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Division slated that the waiver regarding the wetlands would be dealt with administratively and submitted through Mr. Watts and/or the development services department. 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 9:34 am. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOM:\-lEI\DATION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The applicant, Tarragon, LLC, 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. 3. 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. 5. The subject site is located on the east side of the 2000 block of Lind Avenue. Unopened rights-of-way for SW 21" and SW 23'd Street are located nmih and south of the subject site, respectively. A self~ storage warehouse and SR-167 are located east of the site. 6. The map element of the Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the subject site is located as suitable for the development of employment generating uses, but does not mandate such development without consideration of other policies of the Plan. 7. The subject site is zoned IL (Light Industry). 8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 4040 enacted in January 1987. Cedar River Corporate Park Sne Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March 15, 2007 Page4 9. The subject site is approximately 539,272 square feet or 12.4 acres. The parcel is generally rectangular with a panhandle extending off the northeast comer of the site. The parcel is approximately 599 feet wide (north to south) and approximately 1,069 feet deep. 10. The subject site is generally level as a result of fill materials that had been deposited in the past. A Category 2 wetland is located along the north boundary of the site while a Category 3 wetland is located along the south boundary. Development on the subject site will respect the required wetland buffers. 11. No significant trees were found on the site. 12. The applicant proposes developing a four-building complex for office, retail and light industrial uses. The buildings would be arranged in a rectangular fashion. Building A, the westernmost building, would be aligned north to south parallel to Lind. Building B, the northernmost building, would be aligned with the north property line. Building C, the southernmost building, would be aligned with the south property line. Building D, the easternmost building, would be aligned north to south parallel to the east property line. 13. The buildings will range in size from 29,940 square feet (Building B) to 44,580 square feet (Building D) with Building A at 35,047 square feet and Building C at 33,740 square feet. The total size for the four buildings will be 143,307 square feet. The buildings will all be 22 feet 8 inches in height. The buildings will be arranged around an interior quad where large delivery vehicles would have access from interior bays. The buildings would serve to screen the loading areas from the street and surrounding properties. 14. Patron and employee parking would be arranged around the perimeter of the subject site. Parking regulations base parking on the nature of uses. The applicant has indicated that 75% of the complex would be dedicated to office uses, which require between 3 and 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet and that 25% would be dedicated to warehousing uses, which require 1 space per 1,500 square feet. If 107,480 square feet were office space, parking would range from 322 to 484 spaces while 35,827 square feet of warehouse space would require 24 spaces. The total parking could range from a 346 to 508 spaces whereas the applicant has proposed 408 stalls. 15. Access to the subject site would be via two driveways along Lind Avenue. Driveways would be located in the northwest and southwest comers of the subject site. Pedestrian walks are proposed to surround the buildings. There will be a link to the exterior sidewalk along Lind. 16. The applicant has proposed landscaping along the frontage and perimeter of the site including in the areas adjacent to the wetlands north and south of the subject site. Code requires landscaping of the lesser of 10% of lot depth or 15 feet along street frontages. The site is surrounded by streets on the north, south (both unopened rights-of-way) and west. The applicant has proposed meeting these requirements except north of Building D where landscaping narrowed to 5 feet. The landscaping in that area would have to be supplemented to meet Code requirements. Parking lots exceeding 99 stalls require 35 square feet of landscaping per space and one tree per 6 spaces and 5 shrubs per 100 square feet of landscaped area. The applicant's plans appear to meet or exceed the requirements but will be checked as development proceeds. 17. Lot coverage of 65% is permitted whereas only 26.6% is proposed. 18. The applicant's plans do not currently meet the requirements for garbage/recycling stations for the size Cedar River Corporate Park Site Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March 15, 2007 Page 5 of the proposed complex and will have to be modified to meet Code. 19. The development will increase traffic approximately 999 trips based on standard analysis of the ratio of proposed uses. 20. Stormwater will continue to flow into the onsite wetlands after treatment and storm water management will comply with the 2005 King County Manual. 21. Sewer and domestic water service are provided by the City. The project will have to provide appropriate connections to the City systems. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The site plan ordinance provides a number of specific criteria for reviewing a site plan. Those criteria are generally represented in part by the following enumeration: a. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; b. Conformance with the Building and Zoning Codes; c. Mitigation of impacts on surrounding properties and uses; d. Mitigation of the impacts of the proposal on the subject site itself; e. Conservation of property values; f. Provision for safe and efficient vehicle and pedestrian circulation; g. Provision of adequate light and air; h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the proposed use; The proposed use satisfies these and other particulars of the ordinance. 2. The proposed complex of office and warehouse buildings will help create additional employment opportunities in the valley thereby satisfying the goals of the comprehensive plan. 3. The four buildings observe the proper setback from the property line, meet the height limits of the zone, create a footprint less than permitted and provide the appropriate number of parking stalls. The applicant will have to supplement landscaping along portions of the north property line and provide adequate garbage and recycling facilities. It appears that the proposed use meets or can meet the requirements of the Zoning Code. Compliance with the Building Code will be determined when appropriate detailed plans are submitted. 4. The approximately 30 foot tall buildings will not create undue impacts on adjacent property or public spaces. The generous setbacks should prevent shading or shadow impacts. The development will create the normal construction related noise impacts and development of a vacant site will change the character of the property but not in any untoward manner. Cedar River Corporate Park uhe Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March 15, 2007 Page 6 5. The design of the complex will focus heavy trucking operations on the interior of the parcel buffered by the buildings themselves. That interior quad will also provide adequate separation between buildings. The site is landscaped along its perimeter and in its parking areas. 6. The two driveways are well-separated and pedestrian connections around the buildings and to the street have been provided. 7. The development of the property will increase traffic and comings and goings but should not adversely affect property values. Developing the subject site will increase the tax base of the City. In addition, the applicant will be paying mitigation fees to outset some of its impacts on public services. 8. Utilities are available to serve the subject site. Stormwater will be treated and routed to the adjacent wetlands allowing appropriate recharge. 9. In conclusion, the proposed four-building complex appears to be well designed and meets or can meet City standards for development in the IL Zone. DECISION: The Site Plan is approved subject to the following conditions: I. A revised site and landscape plan shall be submitted with the building permit application showing the required 15-foot landscape strip along the site's SW 21" Street frontage, north of Building D for review and approval by the Development Services Division project manager. 2. Either the site plan shall be revised to provide the required refuse and recyclable deposit areas per City standards, or a modification request to reduce the required refuse and recyclable deposit areas shall be submitted. The revised site plan or modification request shall be submitted to the Development Services Division project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. ORDERED IBIS 15th day of March 2007. FREDJ.KAAN HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 15th day of March 2007 to the parties ofrecord: Jill Ding 1055 S Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Kayren Kittrick Development Services City of Renton Tarragon, LLC 1000 Second Avenue, Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 Jim Carleton AHBL, Inc. 2215 N 30th Street, Ste. 300 Howard Seelig PO Box 1925 Bellevue, WA 98009 Paul McCormick 1405 Point Fosdick Dr. NW Gig Harbor, WA 98335 Cedar River Corporate Park Site Approval File No.: LUA-06-172, SA-A, ECF March I 5, 2007 Page 7 Tacoma, WA 98403 TRANSMITTED THIS ! 5th day of March 2007 to the following: Mayor Kathy Keolker Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator Alex Pietsch, Economic Development Jennifer Henning, Development Services Stacy Tucker, Development Services King County Journal Larry Rude, Fire Larry Meckling, Building Official Planning Commission Transportation Division Utilities Division Neil Watts, Development Services Janet Conklin, Development Services Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section IOOGofthe City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m .• March 29, 2007. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors oflaw 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 IV, 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., March 29. 2007. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required 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. Project Location: 20XX Lind Avenue SW (parcel no. 334040-0285)