HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_LUA-05-133April 25, 2006
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF RENTON
Minutes
APPLICANT/OWNER:
LOCATION:
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT:
PUBLIC HEARING:
IDA Group, LLC
I.D. Kline Corporation
95 S Tobin Street
Renton, W A 98055
Rainier Mixed Use South Parking Lot
File No.: LUA 04-093, ECF, SA-A
And LUA 05-133, V-H
West of Rainier Avenue North and north of Chang's
Mongolian Grill. Southeast ofNW 6th Street. South Parcel,
20.012 square feet and a north parcel 59,951 square feet.
Administrative Site Plan and Variance review for the
construction of27 parking spaces within a surface lot
associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant.
Development Services Recommendation: Approve with
conditions
The Development Services Report was received by the
Examiner on March 7, 2006.
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 14, 2006 hearing.
The legal record is recorded on CD.
The hearing opened on Tuesday, March 14,2006, at 9:03 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 pertinent to this request.
Exhibit No.3: Overall Site Plan Exhibit No.4: South Lot and South Wetland Fill Plan
Exhibit No.5: North Wetland Enlargement and Exhibit No.6: Conceptual Planting Plan
Enhancement Plan
Rainier Mixed Use South P; 19 Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 2
Exhibit No.7: Demolition and TESC Plan
Exhibit No.9: North Wetland Grading and Drainage
Plan
Exhibit No 11: ERC Mitigation Measures
Exhibit No 13: Letter from Hugh Mortensen, The
Watershed Company, dated December 13,2005
Exhibit No.8: Parking Lot Grading and Drainage
Plan
Exhibit No. 10: Zoning Map
Exhibit No. 12: Letter from Kathy Curry, The
Watershed Company, dated August 3 1,2004
The hearing opened with a presentation of the staff report by Keri Weaver, Senior Planner, Development
Services, City of Renton, 1055 S Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98055. The proposal would create a 27 stall
parking lot on approximately 20,000 square feet of a 1.55 acre parcel located on the west side of Rainier Avenue
North with a driveway connection from the existing Chang's Mongolian Grill parking lot located off of Rainier.
This is proposed to provide overflow parking for the restaurant and to accommodate the current rush hour
parking shortages on the existing parking lot.
The site of the south wetland area has significant areas of steep slopes with ravines and wetlands located at the
bottom of those slopes and are largely wooded at this time. The site is bounded by residential properties to the
west, the large change in grade does provide a natural separation buffer. The site is zoned Commercial Arterial
(CA) and the parking lot is a pennitted use within that zone. The proposed design of the parking lot drainage
and access points does comply with the zone requirements.
In order to construct a parking lot on this location, it will be necessary to fill a small area of wetland and wetland
buffer on a wetland that has been identified by the applicant as meeting the requirements of a Category 3
wetland classification. This wetland is located on the south side of the property between two areas of steep
slopes. The applicant proposed to mitigate this impact to the wetland by offsite creation and enhancement at a
ratio of 1.5: 1 on what is referred to as the north wetland, a Category 2 wetland on a non-contiguous property
under the same ownership. The applicant also proposed buffer averaging for the north wetland with a 25-foot
buffer instead of 50-feet on the east side, which is currently under review as Rainier Station.
There is an onsite watercourse extending from the Category 3 wetland that is proposed to be culverted to
accommodate the parking lot. In order to remove trees and vegetation within 25-feet of this watercourse area, a
variance will be required. The project is not subject to the current critical areas regulations.
The applicant has justified the variance request by demonstrating hardship caused by the topographical
limitations of the property including steep slopes, wetlands and the on-site watercourse that does prevent the
majority of the site from being used for commercial development as allowed by zoning without significant
alteration of the terrain and removal of sensitive areas. The project represents a minimal disturbance of the
property. Mitigation conditions will be imposed through the SEPA DNS-M and the site plan conditions to
prevent erosion and runoff and disturbance to wetland areas and to enhance an off-site wetland of a higher
category.
Prior to final approval, additional information will be necessary to finalize the category determination of the
south wetland. Consultants have indicated that it may meet the requirements for a Category 2 wetland. This
Rainier Mixed Use South Panung Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 3
does not impact the applicant's vested ability to undertake the proposed partial fill or to place the parking lot in
the desired location.
The Examiner stated that we should know what the category of the wetland actually is before proceeding any
further.
Ms. Weaver stated she had been informed that they could proceed with preliminary approval, as the location of
the parking lot would not need to be altered, it was the off-site mitigation that could be required to increase on
the north wetland without having an effect on the south wetland.
If it is determined that the south wetland meets the requirements of a Category 2 wetland the applicant would be
required to undertake additional off-site mitigation that would occur on the north wetland by increasing wetland
creation, enhancements or buffers. A Category 3 wetland normally requires a 25-foot buffer and a Category 2
would require 50-feet.
The modification to the parking was requested because currently Chang's has sufficient parking under code to
serve the size of the restaurant. They requested a modification in order to provide additional parking off-site. It
was determined, after review, that there is sufficient traffic and need to justify this modification.
There was discussion regarding the removal of the natural detention provided by the wetland and whether or not
that would contribute to future downstream problems or flooding.
Rich Wagner, Baylis Architects, 10801 Main Street, Ste. 110, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated that the goals of the
project were to make a commercially zoned property productive. There is an existing restaurant that could be
much more productive, there are not a lot of alternative uses for a site like this and in this particular area given
the boulevard that it is on, there is an immense amount of traffic but not a lot of transit. The City does try to
keep the amount of asphalt low and yet access high. The City parking cap is not necessarily applicable here and
that is why they have asked for the modification.
This site is separated from the residential and the residential people have been advised about this potential
rezone. There have been no comments from these people concerning this application.
The parking lot is going to be an important aspect to the existing restaurant, it is also believed that as this area
continues to redevelop that parking lot will be in the right location. The quality of this wetland, based on
research, is not the same quality as the Class 2 that is to the north. By enhancing the Class 2 the neighborhood
is getting a better environment from this change.
The Examiner stated that there is dispute over the wetland. The Category of that wetland has been undecided.
Mr. Wagner stated that experts had been brought in to make a determination. Last year the City did invite an
opinion from the Watershed Company, they did an independent investigation. Those findings were never seen
until just a couple of months ago. Last year Watershed did another analysis. There seems to be two
professional opinions that do not agree.
The Examiner stated that that may be the case, but at this point he does not have the information that is needed
to make a decision on this property. The City and applicant can resolve it and find it is a Category 2, or the City
can decide that it is a Category 3 and then go ahead and expend the north wetland further. A third option is that
the applicant can appeal the determination of the category of the wetland.
Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 4
He would like to know the category of the wetland that is proposed to be buried, along with the stream course
that feeds it and beyond. Also, according to the report, it is not known if the wetland is filled will it displace
water around it.
Mr. Wagner stated that HBL has taken this project all the way to a building permit application and so it is
known that it does accommodate a displacement. What he does not have is the documentation, but that can be
presented to staff to make sure that that question is addressed and removed from the table.
If for some unknown reason it were determined to be a Class 2 wetland, the actual work on this particular site
would likely not change. The fill mitigation that is proposed on the north wetland is an expansion of a Class 2
wetland to mitigate the fill of the Class 3. The wetland itself continues up into the valley and there would be
plenty of opportunity to buffer average in that area.
HBL was brought in two years ago for the examination of this site, basically the intent is to clean up the trash
and continue to clean up any noxious weeds that show up. The wetland area is fairly well cleaned up currently
and that is because when the applicant took over ownership of the property they went in and cleaned the area.
This site is owned by IDA Group.
Because the site is so close to the Lake Washington basin, it was inappropriate to have retention/detention here,
however, they were striving for water quality and that is why the biofiltering is being proposed.
The Examiner stated that he would probably not close the hearing, Ms. Weaver is not at liberty to make that
kind of decision at this hearing. The record would be held open until the matter is clarified.
The City has environmental amenities that they try to protect, wetlands get moved, creeks can be put
underground in a ditch or pipe and that may not be appropriate. The drainage course may be rerouted.
Celeste Botha, 2025 S Norman Street, Seattle, WA 98144 stated that it might not be appropriate at this time for
her to make a case for her determination. She went through the letter from the Watershed Company dated
August 31, 2004 and explained the issues covered therein. The hydrology patterns have been addressed by the
hydrologists and the engineers and require no further interpretation. Permits from the state and federal
government are also standard and will be handled at the appropriate time. The minimum buffer that is required
is regulated by the ordinary high water mark of the stream and that is included in the wetland so that the stream
buffer is inside the wetland itself. The stream flows from the west towards the east and comes from offsite to
the west and then goes into a series of pipes into the lake.
As far as disturbance to native buffer areas, that will be addressed in the next phase and refers to the north
wetland area where the mitigation is going to occur. The delineation report explains why this area, although the
water is very close to the surface, the Watershed Company accepted the delineation and therefore agreed that it
did not meet the wetland criteria. The performance standards have been changed in the most recent revisions to
the wetland report will be submitted soon.
The request was to put in the parking lot prior to the mitigation measures on the north wetland being in place for
12 months. The mitigation measures on the north would be in place and completed before any work was started
on the south lot, they just would not have been monitored for 12 months.
Item 10 in the Watershed letter has been revised for future submittal. A five-year monitoring schedule will be
provided.
Rainier Mixed Use South ParlUng Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 5
The next letter from Watershed dated December 13,2005 was the first time that the applicant became aware that
Watershed was involved. This was the first that they became aware that the categorization of the south wetland
was accurately delineated but there was some trouble with the categorization. The watercourses classification is
difficult, the City did not originally classify watercourses. She discussed with the City and as she understood it,
those sections of the Code were reserved.
As far as buffers being increased where the slopes exceed 15% there is ample space on the project for this to
occur, the drawings can be revised to show the increased buffer area.
Mr. Wagner stated that in both letters from Watershed they talk about exploring different options, many options
were explored although Watershed was not a part of that teamwork. The options are, you continue to add more
parking or you reduce parking because of the topographic layout, this was the only option to develop the site in
any usable way. One idea that Watershed did have was to not do a paper fill, but to do an ecology wall and that
appeared to be a great idea.
Ryan Jeffries, 2215 North 30th Street, Tacoma, WA stated that he was here to speak about the drainage on the
property, the existing watercourse flows from the west into the site through the wetland via the stream and is
currently collected in a catch basin in the middle of the site. That flow from the stream is adequately conveyed
through the existing City storm system. The proposal is to add 128 linear feet of culvert at the west edge of the
parking lot and convey that into the existing system basically at its current locations. Approximately 120 feet of
pipe will be added. The parking lot will be collected in a bio-infiltration facility at the south edge of the parking
lot where it will be treated and also a measure of water quantity will be provided via the infiltration facility
there, water quality and quantity will be provided in this proposed facility. That facility will overflow into a
catch basin and drain into the City system at its current location on the site, which has adequate capacity. The
surface water runoff flow rates will be increased slightly, however they will be mitigated via the infiltration
facility that will be provided on-site so that the downstream system will not be significantly altered in terms of
its flow rates.
The water quality portion of the facility will meet the requirements in terms of removal of total suspended
solids, oils, and grease which will all be treated in the bioswale.
The Examiner stated that it is very difficult to rectify existing conditions along Rainier with all the facilities that
are present but this facility should be designed so that the first flush won't be swept off into the lake. A wetland
and a stream course are being buried to create a parking lot, which is not necessarily an environmental amenity.
Mike Dotson, Development Services stated that the engineer addressed most of the Examiner's issues. They
would need to demonstrate that the downstream system is sized to convey any future condition flows and that
would be a requirement of their engineering design, if it did not they would be responsible to increase the
system so that it would adequately convey flows. It was also mentioned that on-site detention would be
provided to meet the design storm standards in order to mitigate their on-site runoff from the new impervious
area they are creating.
As to how much water storage capacity is being replaced by paving the wetland and the area adjacent to the
wetland, he had not seen the report and so he did not know for sure.
The Examiner stated that it would seem that the applicant would need to know this information prior to doing
any work. In this area the water table is not that low and so it is impossible to just carve out a potential holding
pond, you might not have the storage capacity there.
Rainier Mixed Use South Parl ~ Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 6
Mr. Wagner stated that one of the things that has happened on this application is HBL, on behalf of the
applicant, has actually filed for construction pennits. It was a review of those construction pennits that
triggered a couple of the things that needed to be revised for the tree cutting ordinance, which brought forth the
variances today. The application that had been filed with the City was suspended because of the processing of
that construction pennit pending this hearing. The infonnation can be gathered and given to the Examiner ifhe
wishes.
The Examiner stated that he would close this session, but not the hearing. In order to go forward, he wants to
know the Category or Classification of this wetland. If the parties wish to agree to the greater standard so it is
final and done, that will be acceptable. The record will be open until that infonnation is received.
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: 16 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, and ID. Kline Corp., filed a request for a Variance from the Tree
Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations, as well as 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 primary subject site is located west of 505 Rainier Avenue North and southeast ofNW 6th Street if
that street were extended to the east. The site is located north of Chang's Mongolian Grill, a restaurant.
If the variance allowing vegetation removal is approved, a parking lot would be developed to serve that
restaurant. The applicant would also fill a portion of a wetland on this primary site to enable the
construction of the parking lot.
6. A second parcel involved in the application is north of the first. It also contains a wetland. This second
wetland would be enhanced to offset filling wetlands on the proposed parking lot parceL
7. 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.
8. The subject site is currently zoned CA (Commercial Arterial).
9. The subject site was annexed to the City with the adoption of Ordinance 1461 enacted in November
1963.
Rainier Mixed Use South Par, ... ug Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 7
10. The parcel is approximately 20,012 square feet. The applicant would develop approximately 9,200
square feet for the parking lot.
11. The south parcel contains approximately 16,600 square feet of wetlands while the north parcel contains
approximately 21,700 square feet of wetland.
12. The applicant proposes filling approximately 2,017 square feet of wetland and 1,574 square feet of
required buffer for total fill of 3,591 square feet to create the parking lot.
13. The parking lot would be northwest of the existing restaurant site. It would be to the rear of an auto
repair business. It would be connected by an approximately 80-foot long aisle way to the existing
restaurant. The parking lot aisle would be aligned in an east to west direction with the parking stalls
oriented in two tiers with cars parked in a north to south orientation. The lot would accommodate 27
vehicles.
14. As noted, there is a wetland on the subject site. The wetland is at the base ofa ravine in the slopes
above Rainier Avenue. The wetland was categorized by the applicant's wetland consultant as a
Category 3 Wetland. The City's wetland consultant categorized it was a Category 2 Wetland. The
status was unresolved at the time of the public hearing. Subsequent to the hearing, on April 6, 2006, the
Development Services Director issued a decision that the wetland is a Category 3 wetland but noted in
that decision that it appeared to be a close call.
15. There is an onsite watercourse that drains the wetland area and flows toward Rainer Avenue. The
applicant proposes clearing vegetation within the 25-foot buffer and culverting the watercourse to
develop the parking lot.
16. Chang's Restaurant has 43 on-site parking stalls. Staff reports Chang's Restaurant has 3,500 net square
feet of floor area. Code requires 1 parking stall per 100 square feet for eating and drinking
establishments or 35 stalls for the restaurant. Currently the restaurant has eight (8) more stalls than
required by code. The applicant proposes developing 27 additional stalls for a total of 70 stalls. A
modification to develop the excess parking is required. It was approved by the Administrator.
17. The restaurant seats 140 patrons. The applicant maintains that during lunch and some dinner hours the
existing parking lot is full and patrons leave since they cannot find parking.
18. Access to the new lot would be via a 22-foot wide driveway from Chang'S existing lot and its driveway
on Rainier.
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;
Rainier Mixed Use South Par Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 8
b. The granting of the variance would not materially hann 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
d. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable development of the subject
site.
The applicant's property is not ripe for the variance requested.
2. An analysis of the requested variance involves not only the direct impact of approving the variance but
the additional ramifications. In this case, the applicant seeks a variance to cut down trees or vegetation
along a stream corridor but in fact granting the variance will result in the culverting of a surface water
feature. So while it appears that only vegetation in the required 25-foot buffer would be removed if the
variance is approved, the approval actually grants the applicant pennission to remove a creek, a natural,
if not critical feature, that is fed by a wetland, another critical feature, located at the base of steep slopes,
yet another critical feature. The issue really comes down to whether or not an applicant who purchases
or owns a severely constrained site, one with steep slopes, wetlands and a stream suffers a unique
hardship that justifies clearing vegetation in the stream's buffer and then culverting the stream,
effectively eliminating that stream. The entire request is driven by a request for more parking for a use
that already has more than adequate parking according to code standards. The variance cannot be
justified under these circumstances. Creating an enlarged parking lot over a portion of a wetland and
eliminating a stream is contrary to City goals to maintain environmentally sensitive areas. Of course, as
with any Comprehensive Plan policy, one can find a countervailing one. In this case economic
development would be the other side of the coin. But using a need for more parking than required by
code to eliminate a portion of a wetland and pave over a creek is untenable and does not strike a
reasonable balance.
3. While neither the wetland nor creek are pristine, removing them from the inventory of environmentally
sensitive site does not serve the public interest. The fact is that they were allowed to be degraded over
the years because there was little interest in such natural features. But big rivers are fed by such little
streams. The wetland and even this small drainage channel provide biofiltrationjust like the artificial
swales created in many new developments only this one is natural, already exists and serves to filter
water that eventually flows into Lake Washington.
4. Approving this variance would create an unjustified precedent. The steep hillside above Rainier
Avenue is the source of many seeps. Many businesses can claim that they need more parking than code
specifies. This would particularly be the case along Rainier Avenue where there are a number of
restaurants and other businesses and no access to on-street parking. This office can completely
sympathize with the restaurant. All businesses would want a larger customer base than they can
support. The City, in adopting its parking standards, has relied on numerous factors and created a
reasonable predictor -the square footage of the business. Economics have generally not been an
acceptable basis for establishing a hardship. There must be a physical constraint and trading off a
parking lot for a wetland and stream course is not appropriate.
5. There is no justification for approving this variance.
Rainier Mixed Use South Par.~ .. g Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 9
Site Plan
6. 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 propose
7. The proposal is not compatible with the environmental objectives ofthe comprehensive plan.
The applicant proposes filling in a portion of a wetland and while the applicant proposes enhancing a
separate wetland, a surface stream will be eliminated and placed in a culvert. Natural features should be
protected and enhanced. While enhancement is proposed it is not for this wetland but at an off-site
location. This wetland is at the base of a steep hillside and drains into a creek. The creek, even as short
as it is and as shallow as it is deserves to be protected.
8. Compliance with building code would be determined at a later date. The proposal involves exceeding
the normal complement of required parking. While the modification was approved, it would result in
sacrificing a surface creek.
9. The creation of additional parking probably would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties
but it could result in additional air pollution and engine noise reaching properties upslope from the site.
10. Asphalting a wetland and culverting a creek does not do much to mitigate impacts to the subject site. It
is not appropriate to convert sensitive or environmental amenities to asphalt.
11. The development should not affect property values.
12. It would appear that pedestrian and vehicular circulation are adequate.
DECISION:
The Site Plan and Variance to allow tree cutting and vegetation clearing are not approved.
Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
April 25, 2006
Page 10
ORDERED THIS 25th day of April 2006.
~ 4/(w~
FRED J. KA1dJ II """"
HEARING EXAMINER
TRANSMITTED THIS 25 th day of April 2006 to the parties of record:
Keri Weaver
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, W A 98055
Richard Wagner
Baylis Architects
10801 Main Street, Ste. 110
Bellevue, W A 98004
Rolland Dewing
210 NW 5 th Street
Renton, W A 98055
Ronnie & Roberta McDonald
216 NW 5th Street
Renton, W A 98055
Lee & Peggy Christopherson
503 Rainier Avenue N
Renton, W A 98055
Mike Dotson
Development Services
Renton, W A 98055
Celeste Botha
2025 S Norman Street
Seattle, WA 98144
Carl P. Burns
213 NW 6th Street
Renton, W A 98055
Bruce & Sue Gregg
207 NW 5th Street
Renton, W A 98055
TRANSMITTED THIS 25 th day of April 2006 to the following:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
Julia Medzegian, Council Liaison
Stan Engler, Fire
Larry Meckling, Building Official
Planning Commission
Transportation Division
Utilities Division
IDA Group, LLC
I.D. Kline Corporation
95 South Tobin Street
Renton, W A 98055
Ryan Jeffries
2215 North 30th Street
Tacoma, WA
Mary Jo Carlson
215 NW 5 th Street
Renton, W A 98055
Sherondia Renee Otis
211 NW 5th 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 IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gofthe 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
Rainier Mixed Use South Pa g Lot
File No.: LUA-04-093, ECF, SA-A and
LUA-05-133, V-H
Apri125,2006
Page 11
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 Restrictive Covenants, the
executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing ofthe 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 pennits 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.
SltePLNJPt.doc
, • 1 d\ , , \
'G\ ~\.
\
~ ,
,
J
\ ,
\
\ :lJ\ \ P,\
-\
'Z,\ -\ rt\' ').)'
TII:I aNVl.1.3M' 1; ~~;I I HJ.flOS aNY I • H
Ii .1.0' HmOS : •
t
; I · · · · " · · ~ · · • • ~ • • • 1-I :~z :z:~ 1-4:~ U) --1-\1)
XU) WRt ! $
0
N
" = -
-S'
t}:
Q :z
~
I
If
-1
Iv lL
D z
Exhibit 4
..-
i· -•
J l!
~1
0
\
\
\
\ ..... --\,,< '
{, : ' ""'--/ ' , , .~ . .J;...,' I ,... ,
I
I
I
I
I
I '
I r ,< ,,'
/:
/ ':
I
/
/' I
(
I
I
\
\
~\
~ \
\
\
)
/
I
/
/
./
--,---
IJJC1;;:;~:f1
r---~
, ~ ,
I ,
h ,
r1 ~ &:. , ..
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 9
CITY OF RENTON
REVISED DETERMINATION OF NON .. SIGNIFICANCE .. MITIGA TED
MITIGATION MEASURES
APPLICATION NO(S): LUA04-093, SA-A, ECF/LUA05-133, V-H
APPLICANT: JDA Group, LLC& 10 Kline Corp.
PROJECT NAME: Rainier Avenue Mixed-Use South Parking Lot
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Environmental (SEPA) Review and
Administrative Site Plan review for the construction of 27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with the
adjacent Chang's Mongolian Grill restaurant The proposal includes portions of two large parcels containing
Category 2 and 3 wetlands. The Category 3 wetland would be filled to accommodate the parking lot, with wet/and
compensation proposed off-site that would include wetland creation, enhancement and buffer averaging. A
variance from the Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations is required for proposed vegetation removal and
work within the 25-ft. buffer of the onsite watercourse/stream.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
LEAD AGENCY:
MfTIGA nON MEASURES:
West ot 505 Ranier Avenue N & southeast of NW 6th Street
The City of Renton
Department of Planning/BuHamglPublic Works
Development Planning Section
1. The project shaH be required to be designed and comply with the Department of Ecology's (DOE) Erosion and
Sediment Control Requirements, outlined in Volume" of the 2001 Stormwater Management Manual.
2. During site preparation and construction, the applicant shall install silt fencing with brightly colored construction flags
to indicate the boundaries of the North and South wetlands and buffer areas adjacent to the proposed construction
areas. The sa·tisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the DeveJopment Services
Division and be completed prior to the issuance of construction/utility pennits.
3. After the development of parking lot and associated site improvements, the applicant shan install permanent fencing
(i.e. split-rail fence or. other approved barrier) and signage along the entire eastern edge of the North and South
wetland buffers. The satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development
Services Division.
4. The applicant shall provide the total buffer fill square footage and an update landscape ptan illustrating the exact
locations of where interplanting was installed on the South Parcel as part of the Wetfand Mitigation Plan. The
satisfaction of this requirement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division.
5. In the event that archaeological deposits are found during construction, work shall stop and the contractor(s) shall
contact the State Archaeologist at the State of Washington Office of Archaeology and HistoriC PreservaUon, phone
(360) 586-3065.
Exhibit 11
oRe Mitigation Measures Page 1 of 1
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNINGIBUILDINGI
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
April 6, 2006
Fred Kaufman, Hearing Examiner
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Wetland Classification -Chang's Parking Lot Expansion
This memo is in response to your inquiry of the appropriate classification for the wetland
area associated with the Chang's Parking Lot Expansion west of Rainier A venue N. I
concur with the applicant's conclusion that this wetland area is most appropriately
classified as a Category 3 wetland. The specific characteristics of this wetland do not
neatly fall into any of the available definitions for either a Category 2 or Category 3
wetland. Our recommendation is based on our review of the definitions for these two
categories, and of the characteristics of this particular wetland.
This wetland is a section of sloped area, which is subject to seeps and ground water flow,
which results in a continually wet condition. It is not a pond or typical wetland with any
accumulation of surface water. The area is vegetated with noxious weeds, and has been
subject to remediation efforts to remove the undesired plant species. The wet area is
adjacent to a drainage course, which is classified as a stream. The stream begins
upstream from this location, draining a small basin area consisting of homes, yards,
undeveloped slopes and public streets. This wetland is not located at the headwaters of
this drainage course. The wetland has very limited value in tenns of nonnal wetland
values and functions.
It is clear that this wetland is not a Category 1 wetland. The decision is whether it is
appropriately treated as a Category 2 or Category 3 wetland. Renton's wetland
regulations list out various potential definitions for qualifying as either of these
categories. This wetland does not meet any of these definitions, although it most closely
meets definition "a" (severely disturbed) of the definitions for a Category 3 wetland. We
are left with the last definition for these two categories. A wetland can be classified as a
Category 2 if it is not a Category 1 or 3 wetland, or it can be classified a Category 3 if it
not a Category 1 or 2. As the wetland fails to completely fit into any of the other
definitions for either a Category 2 or 3 wetland, we are left with having to decide where it
best fits based on its wetland values and functions. This wetland does not meet the
values and functions of a Category 2 wetland as it provides little in the way of
hydrological value, limited habitat value and has been severely disturbed with invasive
plant species. Therefore, it complies with definition "c" for a Category 3 wetland and is
treated as a Category 3 wetland, with associated buffer requirements and replacement
ratio requirements.
May 30,2006
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) §
COUNTY OF KING )
BONNIE 1. WALTON, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn
on oath, deposes and says that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the State of Washington, over the age of21 and not a party to nor interested in this
matter.
That on the 30th day of May, 2006, at the hour of 5:00 p.m your affiant duly
mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County,
Washington, by first class mail to all parties of record, notice of appeal filed by
JDA Group, LLC of the Hearing Examiner's recommendation on the construction
of27 parking spaces within a surface lot associated with Chang's Mongolian Grill
restaurant, involving Administrative Site Plan review (File No. LUA-04-093, SA)
and Variance review (File No. LUA-05-133, V).
Bonnie 1. Walton, City Clerk
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE me this 30th day of May, 2006.
Deborah 1. Evans
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing in Bothell