HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_LUA-05-155Minutes
APPLICANT/OWNER:
CONTACT:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
• • April 25, 2006
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
IDA Group, LLC
95 S Tobin Street
Renton, W A 98055
Meredith Everist
Baylis Architects
10801 Main Street, Ste. 110
Bellevue, W A 98004
Rainier Station
File No.: LUA 05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
601 Rainier Avenue North
Environmental (SEP A) Review and Site Development Plan
review for 52,000 square feet of commercial space in 3
buildings, with I22-stall parking garage, on 3.3 acres zoned
Commercial Arterial (CA).
Development SerVices Recommendation: Approve with
conditions
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on March 21, 2006.
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 28, 2006 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 28, 2006, at 9:01a.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 I
other documentation pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No.3: Site Plan Exhibit No.4: Land Clearing Plan
-
Rainier Station • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 2
Exhibit No.5: Utility Plan
Exhibit No.7: LandscapelPlanting Plan
--. ---------------'-. --, ---".---'------
--------------------
Exhibit No.9: Zoning Map
•
Exhibit No.6: Grading and Drainage Plan
Exhibit No.8: Letter from Gregg Zimmerman to
Richard-L. Wagner (April 12, 2004)-=~-~-------~ -
Exhibit No. 10: ERC Mitigation Measures
Exhibit No 11: Updated Elevations for the Site Exhibit No. 12: Site Map, Section A-002 (November
21,2005)
Exhibit No 13: Parcel Map Showing Ownership of
Property
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Jennifer Henning, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. This is a proposal for a commercial
development on a 3-acre site located on the west side of Rainier Avenue N. The proposal is to develop three
commercial buildings and a parking garage. The buildings would range from one to three stories and from
7,600 square feet to 12,000 square feet. The three existing structures on site will be removed.
Building One would be 38-feet high, located in the southwest comer of the site and some surface parking just to
the north. Building Two would also be 38-feet high, located in the center of the site, Building Three would be
45-feet high, located in the northern portion of the site, and the parking garage is proposed to be located against
the western wall of the site and would be two levels. The parking garage will be available for access by all of
the buildings. There will be a total of 20 1 parking stalls, 122 in the garage itself and 79. in the surface parking.
The applicant is proposing to phase the project, Building One and site work would be accomplished in Phase 1,
Building Two and the shell of the garage would be constructed in Phase 2, and Building Three and the
completion of the Parking Garage would occur in Phase 3. The applicant has requested an extended approval to
allow the construction of the various phases to 5-6 years.
Access would be via two driveways off Rainier Avenue, one toward the southern portion of the site and the
other at the northern end of the site.
The applicant should comply with the Renton Municipal Airport's request for an avigation easement regarding
noise and flyovers from airport traffic.
There is a wetland that is offsite within 25-feet of the property. The applicant has requested buffer reduction to
25-feet with mitigation, which will result in increased buffers on the north and south sides of the wetland. There
is a lot line adjustment that will be part of this proposal. The property is fairly large and three individual lots
will be created through the lot line adjustment. This adjustment must be completed prior to the issuance of the
construction permits so that all setbacks and coverages can be verified.
In addition to the 2-level parking garage in the northwest comer there will be some additional shoring and
retaining walls and rockeries installed. These were at the recommendation of the geotechnical report. There
would also be construction of permanent fencing, signage on the east edge of the buffer adjacent to the proposed
development.
The Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance -Mitigated with five
mitigation measures. There were no appeals.
,.
--
Rainier Station • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 3
Fire and Transportation fees were imposed by the ERC.
Site Plan Approval:
•
This project does protect the wetlands and does comply with all land use and environmental policies. The
project is zoned Commercial Arterial (CA), which allows commercial development on high traffic corridors.
The lot coverage would be 65% and that meets the requirements for this zone designation. This development
meets the front yard setbackS, however the applicant has requested a variance to reduce the rear yard building
setback from 15 feet to between one and three feet for buildings One and Two, and to reduce the side yard
setbacks from 15 feet to between zero and five feet for the parking structure.
A conceptual landscape plan was submitted with the site development plan. The applicant will be required to
submit a final landscape plan for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
This site is not expected to impact the properties to the west and north, which are zoned residential and are
single-family developments. The parking lot lighting will be non-glare and mounted no more than 25-feet
above the ground. There would be short-term traffic impacts due to construction however the days and times of
construction are limited by code.
There is a Class II wetland located approximately 25-feet from the west property line. The DNS-M indicated
that approval of the Rainier Station development is subject to approval ofa reduction ofthe required 50-foot
buffer from the wetland to 25-feet and the variance application for the Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot.
There will be construction and storm water impacts, which are covered by existing codes. The project is
required to be screened from adjacent residential-zoned properties. The Traffic Planning Section will review
construction related impacts prior to issuing final construction permits. There will be adequate security and
parking lot lighting, which would be regulated by code.
It does not appear that the proposed development would generate any harmful or unhealthy conditions. It
appears that adequate buffering and screening from residential properties will be provided at the proposed
pickup locations for refuse and recycling as requested in the modification request.
There is a 12-inch water line located in Rainier and a 12-inch water main located in NW 6th Street. The static
water pressure at the street level is approximately 65 psi and approximately 60 psi at a finish floor elevation of
50-feet. The fire flow analysis found that the existing water line in Rainier Avenue North could deliver enough
pressure for fire protection. A looped water line must be installed around the proposed buildings if the fire flow
demand exceeds 2,500 gpm. It appears that the demand would be approximately 2,700 to 3,500 gpm.
Additional hydrants will also be required.
There is an 8-inch sewer main in Rainier Avenue North and a sewer main that runs from the cul-de-sac in NW
6th Street through the site, which connects to the main located in Rainier Avenue North. The sewer easement
runs through the site, under the parking area while avoiding the building.
On Rainier Avenue North there is a cutout area that contains a Puget Sound Energy power vault. A Right-of-
Way Use Permit from the City will be required, subject to Puget Sound Energy's agreement to relocate the
vault.
Rainier Station • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 4
Variance Request:
•
The applicant is requesting a variance from the landscaping/screening and setback requirements in the City's
Development Regulations. The variance requests are_based upon the topographical features andconstraint~:9f
tne--site;---~----::'-------------------~------~---------------------------------------------
The development regulations require the IS-foot landscaped visual barrier between CA zoned properties and
residential properties. It may be reduced to 10-feet through the site plan review process. Additionally, when a
CA-zoned property abuts a residential zone, the minimum rear yard and side yard setback is IS feet.
The applicant has requested a variance to reduce the rear yard setbacks and associated landscaped areas from 15
feet to 1-3 feet for Buildings One and Two, and to reduce the side yard setbacks and landscaped areas from 15
feet to 0-5 feet for the parking structure.
The Examiner stated that it seemed that the wetland was being used as justification for driving the variance and
proposed Building OnelLot 1 is nowhere near thewetland. There does not seem to be any hardship, where the
property lines were before the proposed lot line adjustment. Perhaps the building is bigger than it should be for
a small lot.
Ms. Henning stated that one of the reasons for the lot line adjustment is to bring it into synch with the zoning.
The applicant does have to show that they meet all four of the variance criteria.
The applicant feels that the subject site imposes undue limitations on its development under the development
regulations. The offsite proximity of a Class IT wetland and a large area of steep slopes on the west side of the
property and offsite have unduly constrained the buildable area ofthe site.
Because of the significant grade change between the subject property and adjacent residential properties,
effective screening of commercial uses through landscaping cannot be achieved. Also, a Class IT wetland within
a forested area, and dense areas of native vegetation, are located between this property and neighboring
residential properties and that provides a natural barrier.
In other properties with similar circumstances where ground features and building locations have reduced or
eliminated the need for screening and buffer functions, it would appear that the City would recommend approval
of a variance to reduce landscaping and setback requirements on this parcel.
The applicant contends that the request for a variance is needed in order to develop the proposed property due to
the steep topography and limited buildable area. Impacts to steep slopes will be limited to those identified as
man-made, and the development will comply with the wetland buffering and mitigation requirements
established in the recommended plat conditions. The proposed variance would not result in affective reduction
of buffering or screening of the neighboring properties.
The owner of this particular parcel that is the subject of today' s hearing is also the owner of the R -I parcel
adjacent to this plat. He has, as of today, a split parcel that includes some commercial and a very low-density
residential component. The lot line adjustment is intended to clean it up so that we know what area is available
for commercial and an additional area that is potentially available for some residential at an extremely low
density if they can comply with City codes that regulate the critical areas. The codes do provide protection.
There was extensive discussion on why these variances should be allowed and what effect they will have on
future plat developments.
• Rainier Station
File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 5
•
Rich Wagner, 10801 Main Street, Ste 11 0, Bellevue, W A 98004 introduced his team that was present for
today's hearing. The Reilly Group did the environmental analysis, the geotechnical analysis and all of the
analysis concerning the history of the steep slopes.
The goal of this project is to serve the immediate needs ofthe neighborhood. As the airport continues to grow,
there seems to be no specialty grocery stores, no good office space and so they looked to offer these amenities to
the community.
They do accept the ERC recommendations and concur with the findings and recommendations of the staff
report. They do agree with the buffer averaging part of the application and accept the conditions of approval,
however they would like to ask for a six-year approval because of the phasing.
The first phase of the project will be Building One and the immediate site improvements up to the south face of
Building Two, complete grading and utilities for the entire site and completion of a drive lane from the south
base of Building Two through the northern parking lots to the second northerly access. They will be securing all
utilities and surface water, power and gas for the entire site. All retaining walls will be in place during phase
one.
The second phase is Building Two, and the last phase would be Building Three. Within six weeks they will be
filing for construction permits for Building One.
They will maintain the lO-foot setback on the north slope, north of Building Three. The debris fences applied to
the southern face of the northern slope, north of Building One. There is no shoring proposed along the building
face of Building Three or anywhere around the parking strilcture all the way to the northwest comer of Building
Two. There is shoring proposed from the northwest comer of Building Two along the entire west property line
of Building One and Two and a little shoring at the southern wall at the southwest comer of Building One.
The map that shows all of the existing property lines was not brought in today. HBL will have that to the
Examiner either today or tomorrow afternoon, it is important to see the link and know what is taking place on
site.
In the north "dog leg" parcel there are four lots, the R-l area has five lots, three lots in the existing CA zone area
and a separate lot on the south side. The "dog leg" is a zoning line that was defined by a legal description
approximately 12 years ago, it had nothing to do with this application. This proposal does include moving the
property line out closer to the existing wetland in the R-l zone. They are moving the property line into the R-I
zone to match the zoning line.
A shoring wall will be built close to the property line that will be independent of the building construction. The
building will not be holding up the slope, the shoring, processed as a separate permit, will be holding up the
slope.
The LLA proposal will be to the Examiner soon, they are just finishing up the legal descriptions. The CC & R's
are currently being prepared, that will all be done prior to issuing any construction permits.
Sections were presented showing how each would relate to their adjacent neighbors. In section one the houses
will look over the top of Building One, all mechanical equipment on roofs will be screened. Section two will
also allow the neighboring homes to look over the top of Building Two. The parking structure is at grade of the
commercial site.
Rainier Station • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 6
•
At the time the south lot was being proposed, it was presumed that the whole process with Chang's would be
done and decided prior to this hearing. The south lot (parking) is not connected to this parcel for the Rainier
Station. The wetland in Parcel A remains classified as a Class i. They do not want people wandering back into
the buffer area and so agree withERC to fence alongJheeastJineofthe buffer.----------------------------
---~-.---~----------.-~-"-.-~-.-~.---.~-~---+-.--~-~--~ ~-+--.~. ----_.-.---.---~-----.--------~---~--" ----_ .. ------~--
In the revised elevations Building Two is not quite as tall as first presented. Building One tenant is going to be a
long-term user, an eight to nine foot ceiling for a single user is too low, therefore, they are proposing a little
higher ceiling height. Building Two goes a little higher still, with office above and the unlikeliness that there
will be but a single tenant they are able to lower the ceiling height. Building Three is actually proposed as a 3-
story building. That building will have the biggest impact on the parking structure. The goal is to have
commercial on the first floor, general professional offices on the second and if the market is correct, possibly a
restaurant on the third floor that can look out over the airport, the Cascades and even a view of Mt. Baker and
Mr. Rainier.
Regarding parking for Building One, in the early months they will most likely allow employee parking in front
of the building, this gives the appearance of early activity. In the long term, it is anticipated that all of the
employees of all three of the buildings would be in the back portions of the parking garage.
One of the variances involves the distance of the recycling center. Ms. Henning stated that they are in favor of
this modification due to the location and the proximity of Rainier Avenue. The recycling center would be at the
toe of the shored wall that is proposed.
They do not want to do another strip center on a CA zone. They are trying to maximize the developable area.
There does not exist in this community a CA zone that has proposed a parking structure. This is a big step and it
does not seem that he should be discouraged. To justify that expense it is necessary to maximize the square
footage. This is the type of density that the City is trying to achieve. The hardship comes in with the fact that it
is not a deep site, they are trying to create multi-level buildings in order to capture the square footage. The
adjacent steep slopes and wetlands do play at some of the constraints that they are working with. At one time it
was proposed to push the property line back closer to the structured parking, that left the CA zone attached to
the ownership of a R -1 zone. They were encouraged to bring that property line back out.
NW 6th Street to the west and north ofNW 6th Street all the way to the wetland in Parcel A, all of that area
drains into this wetland. There is some seepage in this corridor, but no springs. Most of the water is runoff
from the development adjacent to this project. As a part of the short plat, all ofthat water coming off the short
plat passing to the vaults on the commercial site. The vault work did not show up with this site because it was
part of the short plat application, but they are linked.
Matt Weber, 2215 N 30th Street, Ste. 300, Tacoma, W A 98403 stated that the two wet vaults would be for
treatment of the drainage from the short plat into the commercial site. They will discharge downstream and
drain into Lake Washington.
Kayren Kittrick, Development Services stated that the PSE access is within the City of Renton right-of-way,
they are a franchise utility with an agreement, they do have a right to be there. Currently they have a project all
the way down Rainier from 3rd, across into the airport where they are replacing some of the wiring and
substandard vaults. It should not affect this project.
The site is in the proximity of both Lake Washington and the Cedar River they are exempt from detention. They
went with 1990 Manual because they are exempt from detention. The DOE manual is for the erosion control
and is the strictest and most specific language regarding building windows, environmental controls in place to
protect the wetland, the river and the lake.
• Rainier Station
File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
Apri125,2006
Page 7
•
The City Council has moved to vacate the pedestrian right-of-way, however the rest of the process has not been
completed to date. There is both a sewer and water easement running through the property and both those
would have to be maintained.
Ms. Henning stated that regarding the avigation easement, according to the airport provisions within the code it
states that prior to approval of land uses where aviation over flight may occur, an avigation easement shall be
granted to the City of Renton and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording.
The Examiner stated that he would keep the record open for the submittal of the original underlying parcel maps
and lines.
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 11 :30 am.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following:
FINDINGS:
1. The applicant, IDA Group, LLC, filed a request for approval of Site Plan together with Variances to
reduce both the rear yard setback and the required landscaping buffer from the required 15 feet. A
modification to relocate the waste station was also requested.
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 west side of Rainier Avenue N, northeast ofNW 6th Street if that
street were extended to the east. The site is located west of Renton Municipal Airport.
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 currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial).
8. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November
1963.
9. The parcel is approximately 3.3 acres or 144,975 square feet. The subject site actually consists offour
parcels. A lot line adjustment will reconfigure the parcels so that each building would be located on a
separate legal lot. The subject site is quite irregularly shaped. It is somewhat narrow at the north and
south ends of the site while quite deep in the center where it encompasses the hillside and wetland areas
west of the proposed developable portion of the property. The parcel is approximately 160 feet deep at
Rainier Station • • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 8
10. There is an off-site Category 2 wetland within 25 feet of the subject site. The applicant has requested to
reduce buffer from the required 50 feet to 25 feet with a proposal to enhance buffers on the north and
_sout_~~~g~s:~n:a __ ~_:~~a~o.:__________ _____ _ -_~.::_: ::=_ -_::-: ----
11. The existing auto service and sales uses located on the subject site would be removed if the proposal is
approved.
12. The applicant proposes to develop three buildings and a separate parking garage on the subject site. The
buildings, Buildings One, Two and Three, generally would be aligned south to north. The parking
garage would be located north of Building Two and southwest of Building Three. The proposed uses
would be a small market, shops, a restaurant and offices.
13. Code for Commercial Arterial property requires a minimum front yard setback of 10 feet from a street.
It requires both a 15-foot rear and 15 foot side yard when adjacent to residentially zoned property. Code
requires 10 feet oflandscaping along the street and 15 feet oflandscaping that serves as a visual barrier
adjacent to residentially zoned property.
14. Building One would contain approximately 14,300 square feet and would be 38 feet tall. It would be
one-story with a mezzanine. It would be setback approximately 12 feet from Rainier Avenue. The rear
yard setback due to the adjacent residential zoning requires a 15-foot, landscaped setback whereas the
applicant has proposed a one to three foot setback with similar amounts of landscaping in that reduced
setback area.
15. Building Two would contain 15,200 square feet and would also be 38 feet tall. It would be two-stories.
Building Two is setback approximately 60 feet from Rainier Avenue. The applicant proposes the same
reduced rear yard and reduced landscaping for Building Two as proposed for Building One, that is about
1 to 3 feet.
16. Building Three would be 22,500 square feet and it would be 45 feet tall. It would contain three-stories.
It would be setback 10 feet from Rainier. Building Three would observe a variable setback from the
property line of at least 80 feet.
17. The parking garage would contain two levels and would be approximately 21,000 square feet. It would
be located along the western edge of the subject site but maintain its own setback from the property line,
leaving CA property to its rear with an approximately 20-foot setback. The applicant proposes a zero to
five-foot setback from the north and south boundaries whereas 15 feet is required.
18. Three driveways would serve the site. The southernmost driveway would be just north of Building One.
The middle driveway would be just south of Building Three. The last driveway would provide load
access to the rear or north of Building Three.
19. As noted above, the applicant has requested variances to reduce the setbacks and required landscape
areas along the rear of Buildings One and Three and to reduce the setbacks and landscaping along the
north and south sides of the parking structure.
20. The buildings will be designed in one architectural style so that the complex has a coherent appearance.
The building elevations will be somewhat masked by the higher hillside to the west and the varying
heights of the buildings and garage. The buildings will also take advantage of the slope and paths and
stairways will provide pedestrian access between and, in some cases, around the buildings. The
Rainier Station • • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 9
residential uses upslope will be located higher than the proposed buildings and rooftop equipment will
be screened. The buildings will meet the height limitations imposed by the airport overlay restrictions
of 45 feet.
21. Code requires between 4 and 5 stalls for each 1,000 square feet of net floor area. The total square
footage for the three buildings would be 49,226 square feet and would require between 197 and 246
parking stalls. The applicant proposes a total of201 parking stalls. Parking garage would contain 122
parking stalls. There would be 79 stalls in open parking lots. While the buildings would each be on its
own lot, staff noted that all parking should be shared between the buildings and covenants should
appropriately enshrine that requirement.
22. Surface parking will be located along Rainier Avenue between Buildings One and Two as well as in
front (east) of Building Two. The middle driveway will provide access to the parking garage.
23. Retaining walls and rockeries will provide slope stability along the western and northern edges of the
complex.
24. Landscaping will be provided along the street frontage (Rainier) as well as in interior portions of the
parking areas.
25. The applicant has proposed phasing the project, Building One and site work would be accomplished in
Phase 1, Building Two and the shell of the garage would be constructed in Phase 2, and Building Three
and the completion of the Parking Garage would occur in Phase 3. The applicant has requested an
extended approval to allow the construction of the various phases to 5-6 years.
26. The applicant requested an administrative modification for the location of refuse and recycling pickup
locations at the rear of the property.
27. The applicant proposes to use an area of right-of-way on Rainier Avenue North that is currently
occupied by a power vault belonging to Puget Sound Energy as part of the front parking lot. A Right of
Way Use Permit from the City will be required, subject to Puget Sound Energy's agreement to relocate
the vault.
CONCLUSIONS:
Variance
1. Variances may be granted when the property generally satisfies all the conditions described in part
below:
a. The applicant suffers undue hardship caused by special circumstances such as: the size, shape,
topography, or location where code enforcement would deprive the owner of rights and
privileges enjoyed by others similarly situated;
b. The granting of the variance would not materially harm either the public welfare or other
property in the vicinity;
c. The approval will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
property in the vicinity; and
I
Rainier Station • • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 10
d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject
site.
The applicant's property is ripe for the yariances requested ...
-------~-.. ----,,~-.. --.. "--_ ... ------~---. ----------------------_._-.
2. While the subject site is approximately 3 acres in size and the parcel is not very narrow, developing a
commercial use and required parking does highlight the subject site's limitations. The parcel's
developable acreage is concentrated in an area located along Rainier A venue North. Pulling the
development away from the property lines to create the legal setbacks and landscaping buffer would
further narrow the parcel's development footprint. Coupled with these limitations is the fact that a
wetland constrains the parcel in the area where it would otherwise be its widest. Adding to the
uniqueness and probably saving the variance is the slope west of the development. The encroachment
on what would otherwise be a setback from residential property to avoid the looming or magnify the
bulk differences will be mitigated by the height differences created by the slope. The residential areas
will sit above the development providing topographical relief where setback distance will not provide its
normal buffering purpose.
3. It does not appear that the public interest will suffer since the topography will provide a natural buffer
and the existing vegetation may provide additional protection. What remains to be seen will be what
residents upslope actually perceive when this project is developed since the upslope plat is not occupied.
Slope can only provide limited protection from the commercial hubbub that will occur on the subject
site with car doors slamming, engines starting and patrons leaving restaurants later in the evening. But
frankly, 15 feet oflandscaping might not provide much insulation either. .
4. There should not be much opportunity to exploit the precedent of allowing development of this type of
site along Rainier A venue. Approving the variance will allow reasonable use of the separate parcels.
5.
6.
It appears that the reduction in setback is reasonable in this case due to the topography of the site and
surrounding properties.
The variances are approved.
, Site Plan
7. 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;
• Rainier Station
File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 11
h. Adequacy of public services to accommodate the propose
•
8. The proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan. The market, retail spaces, restaurant and
offices should generate additional jobs and increase the tax base of the City.
9. Compliance with the building code and fire code would be detennined at a later date. The proposal
generally meets the requirements of the Zoning Code with the exceptions for setback outlined in the
variance request.
10. Development of the new commercial uses on the subject site will obviously have an impact on the
adjacent properties west of the site. But commercial uses already occur on the site and, then again,
Rainier Avenue already generates its own impacts in this area as does the nearby airport. The impacts
should not be untoward and those choosing to live upslope will probably make their own analysis of its
residential potentials.
11. The proposal seems well designed although it may appear crowded. The parking garage is not centrally
located which may be a factor in patron use.
12. The development should not affect property values adversely.
13. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate.
14. The low-scale, one, two and three-story buildings will not overpower the site and should allow light and
air to circulate. The slope differential should also protect air and light for the residential uses uphill
from the site.
15. There should be adequate public services to serve the site.
16. The request to phase the site plan will be approved.
Modification
1. The request for the modification does not appear justified. The project is already close to the residential
uses. As noted, there will probably be noises from engines, car doors, patrons and deliveries. There is
little reason to add more noise. Slope will not cut down all noise and there is no reason to overload the
impacts by allowing the dumpster/recycling noises to be any closer than code requires. The applicant
can relocate surface parking stalls to accommodate the facilities in a code compliant manner. The
modification is denied.
DECISIONS:
1. The modification is denied.
2. The site plan and variances are approved subject to the following conditions:
3. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Detennination of Non-Significance -
Mitigated that was issued by the Environmental Review Committee on February 24,2006,
except Condition #3 of the DNS-M as modified by recommended site plan condition #10 below.
I
Rainier Station • • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 12
4. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the letter of modification from Gregg Zimmerman
to Richard L. Wagner, dated December 12,2004, regarding proposed impacts to man-made
steep slopes on the subject site.
5 ...
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
------------------
The applicant shall provide detailed landscape and lighting-plans that show proposed parking lot
landscaping and lighting prior to the recording of the fmal site development plan, subject to
review and approval by the Development Services Division. Lighting shall comply with RMC
4-4-075 and shall not create offsite glare that may interfere with aviation traffic.
Prior to application for construction permits, the applicant shall apply for the necessary lot line
adjustment to create 3 individual parcels as depicted on the site plan dated December 21, 2005.
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall provide draft CC&Rs for the
review and approval of the Development Services Division regarding the assignment of parking
spaces to each building, and maintenance of common landscaping, storage, refuse and recycling
facilities, and parking and driveway areas.
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall obtain any right-of-way use
permits, right-of-way vacations, or release of easements that are necessary for the proposed
development as depicted on the site plan dated December 21, 2005.
Prior to issuance of construction permits, the applicant shall submit a fmal detailed landscape
plan for review and approval by the Development Services Division.
Prior to receiving certificates of occupancy, the applicant shall provide an avigation easement to
the City of Renton Municipal Airport for noise and flyovers resulting from airport traffic, in a
format to be determined by the Development Services Division and the Renton Municipal
Airport.
The applicant shall coordinate with the City's Utility Systems Division for required onsite and
offsite water/sewer improvements, including development of the Sixth Street Short Plat
(LUA04-093).
12. The buffer for the Category II wetland located to the west of the subject property shall be
reduced to 25-feet in those areas where the required 50-feet buffer areas intersect the Rainier
Station property line. Mitigation shall be required in the form of increased buffers on the north
and south sides of the wetland at a 1: 1 ratio. A permanent fence and signage shall also be
constructed on the east side of the wetland adjacent to the proposed development. Prior to
application for construction permits, the applicant shall be required to submit a detailed wetland
buffer mitigation plan for review and approval by the development Services Division, which
shall include plans for fencing and signage.
ORDERED THIS 25 th day of April 2006.
FREDJ.KAUF
HEARINGE
• Rainier Station
File No.: LUA-05-155, SA-H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 13
TRANSMITTED THIS 25 th day of April 2006 to the parties of record:
Jennifer Henning
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Matt Weber
2215 N 30th Street, Ste. 300
Tacoma, W A 98403
Rich Wagner
Meredith Everist
Baylis Architects
10801 Main Street, Ste. 110
Bellevue, W A 98004
TRANSMITTED THIS 20th day of April 2006 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker Stan Engler, Fire
•
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
Kayren Kittrick
Development Services Div.
Renton, W A 98056
IDA Group, LLC '
95 S Tobin Street
Renton, W A 98055
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Alex Pietsch, Economic Development
Jennifer Henning, Development Services
Stacy Tucker, Development Services
King County Journal
Neil Watts, Development Services
Janet Conklin, Development Services
Pursuant to Title N, Chapter 8, Section 1 OOGof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in
writing on or before 5:00 p.m., May 8, 2006. 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., May 8, 2006.
If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Re~trictive 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.
Rainier Station • File No.: LUA-05-155, SA~H, V-H, LLA, ECF
April 25, 2006
Page 14
•
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 Map Rainier StaUon SltePLNJPt.doc
.I NOU.\flS If3INM:I
Dill
J; 1;"
\
\ \
i~ '-\ \ 'r \ \
\ ,\
J
\" ' \
. "", \-\
'\ \' -'\ ~ . 1--_~, I , ,
;.~ c';'/:: ~ '\' Z ll~ -~. ,
O~:i -,I ~ ~--------t::---:
Exhibit 3
~;\~
?'""'l'fr" ,J'm\,.\ ""'~, ' ~.... ~'\'\~"'L ,~ , ~er....~, GUT) ,,' , ", ..:, ,.1. ," , _ "" . . . ~ .
lq~2. ~,
~}' ,
: 1
'I ,
.-' ... ' ;~'
,'S
• ;l I '" 'I:I/']it
e
' '" '
\' ! ii"'," '1' f" " !,
..' • 1-:-,
'l' c---"'\ ~~ ... o~ ~~A.I~~ r; --_J ~~,~ ,. "." "" '.I;C~I'~ \:,' ~,.,., " ,',' I. " ' ~ -, -JH,"I~I' ','00 -:'.';P·t94 PA\~~ M'\t~.p,;e. ','
'1'1' . " G ~ 'f I • III=! +' I" ' f, 'J , N 1 i -'" :i OnI¢II<:I18eII1e: ,~~ ea
i! n • ,~ , • ~ 1
Reference: Boundary & Topognphic Survey "Rainier Avenue Mixed Usc.,
by Triad Associates,fjlated 26 September 2002
Jo
:. 'The Ri(eyGrouTJ, Inc.
, " 10718 LAXE ClTYWAYtfl!'
, S!!Am!, WAsIDNOTON98126
Exh.b,:rA"
U
NO.c:>NIHSVM 'N.
3sn03XlW
NOI.1.V.1.S ~3INIVM
i I
1-1-__
1 I
1 I
i II .N1
i 1 -1-1--
!
I I
I
!) I
1 ! i I
1 I ,
I
1 I I
J 1
LI
I
; ~~ ,I
~ !i ~ ~
~
1= ~
~ . -
!i
9
ill
J
~
~
~
~
-~
1=
1 ~ ~ .. i ~< ;
~
~
1= ~
~ . -
~
ill
8r l ~ t I
I
I
II ! Hi: II
1 1
1 I
lal
I
~I
~i t
~
•
I I
-1-1
I I
LI
!i
~ 1=
~
~ . -
!i
9 ill
I
il .
t
~
I
~ ,
N
«
NOJ.!>NIHSVM ON.
3sn03XI
NOI.l.V.LS ~3INI~
nq r i I
i I
I
! I. . I! HI! ~ -.
t=
i5
l 1sii~~~~~t= ~_--~ -:-:_--::-: -:-:-----::---:=-: t;-.
---
I r
~ r ~ ; ~ , ~ ~~ ~
~ ,
~ I
fj
J: ~
i •
"
a
i
Ifi
I
fj
J: ~
~ .
" !
9
Bi
I
f
I
I ~
fj
~
I .
" ~
Bi
I
I
~
J: ~
~ .
" !
9
Bi
.... '~a .... r'
r. __ ~
~I ~Ut • )1 -I
II NO.1.!>NIHSVM 'N. £ I ! Ud, N
.' . 3Sn03XI l '" M
I "'z ~ ~IIB NOIJ..VLS ~3INI~ II !
00 ii!~
M" uB II §~
~
t t t t t ~ §
$ ~ t ~ ~ q ~ ~ J ~ , ~I ~ ~ ~
I r ~ I I
~ 1 : 1 :
c;
~ t-.: ~
~ :..:.
~ I
_I i
1
~ ~ 1=
-I ~ ~
i ~ . .
en en
~ ~
9
iii ill
1
-1--, ~ t
U f I
i 1 : i
~ ~
i 1
-I Ifi x
~
~ 1
~
~ , 1=
~ 1
, ~ , ,
~ , . 1 .
en en
~ -I +-~ ,
-iii ill
------_ .. __ ._---------.
" .. \"
<·~·t -:-~.
~--t~··;':-::~:-:{.."-.-\ .. :.-~-:.-.-~~:-~'
~-c,.~.)'
Exhibit 9