Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEX Decision_Hampton Inn_14-000061CITY OF RENTON APR 21 2015 RECEIVED CITY CLERICS OFFICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON 7 Renton Hampton Inn and Suites 8 FINAL DECISION Master Site Plan, Site Plan, Parking 9 Modification, Street Modification, 10 Setback Variance& Critical Areas Variance 11 LUA14-000061, SA-M, SA-H,ECF, 12 MOD, VA-A, VA-H 13 14 SUMMARY 15 The applicant has requested a Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, a 16 Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance and a Critical Area Variance in order to construct a 105 guest room hotel and structured parking area. The applicant has further requested 17 a modification to the conditions of approval to reduce the transportation impact fee to reflect credit for construction of improvements (Ex. 22) pursuant to RMC 4-1-190(J) and (L). The Master Site 18 Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Environmental Review, Parking Modification, Setback Variance and Street Modification are approved with conditions. The requested transportation impact fee 19 reduction is dismissed due to lack ofjurisdiction. 20 TESTIMONY 21 22 Staff Testimony 23 Rocale Timmons, senior planner, described the history of the project and the progress to date (Ex. 19). She described the site characteristics and the modifications and variance requests by the 24 applicant. Ms. Timmons noted the applicant had worked to achieve a design that is acceptable to the City after a lengthy design and review process. She described the proposed pedestrian plaza and 25 recessed entry. Both are designed to provide pedestrian amenities and improve the appearance of the project. There will be a roof deck with views to Lake Washington. The applicant has provided a step26backdesignwhichtransitionwellwiththemixedusepropertytothenorth. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 1 1 2 There have been several requests for review including master site plan review, site plan review, design review, setback variance, critical areas variance, a parking modification, and a right of way 3 dedication street modification. The City has worked with the applicant on the orientation and scale 4 of the building to provide transitions to surrounding development at an appropriate scale for the neighborhood. Staff was very concerned about critical slopes. The original proposal had a very large 5 parking garage which essentially eliminated the critical area. The revised proposal is for underground parking which will preserve most of the critical area. 6 The staff focused on three categories of conditions: zoning, design standards, and infrastructure.7 Most of these issues are fine details that can be resolved as part of the engineering review. Staff 8 recommends approval of the project with conditions. 9 In response to the Examiner, Ms. Timmons stated with respect to the right of way dedication, the applicant requested a modification to allow for a reduction in dedication. The transportation 10 department has determined the extra right of way is unnecessary except for a 4.5 ft dedication. That is sufficient to provide the proper right of way and infrastructure improvements in the subject 11 vicinity. Additionally, the pedestrian plaza will provide an additional amenity that would not be 12 possible without the right of way dedication reduction. 13 With respect to storm drainage, Ms. Timmons said the applicant originally proposed to drain storm drainage to the north. The City would prefer the drainage go south, which is the original discharge 14 point. The proposed drainage could potentially flood an adjacent park. However, the applicant could create a drainage detention vault which would serve to remove any need for alterations to the system15downstream. The applicant has the option to either provide a vault or improve the system 16 downstream. 17 Ms. Timmons stated the City's recommendations for parking is the proposed 105 spaces. The City is supportive of the requested variance because the applicant has adequately demonstrated the reduced 18 parking will meet the project's demands. The City is concerned the refuse system might be blocked 19 by a parking stall. 20 With respect to the traffic impact analysis, Ms. Timmons stated the City's working on a new Comprehensive Plan which will address traffic concurrency issues. 21 Applicant Testimony 22 Jessica Clawson, the applicant's attorney, stated the process has been involved. She stated they are23concernedaboutStaffConditionofApproval #11. 24 Brad Lincoln PE, the applicant's traffic consultant, gave a brief history of the project. He described 25 the applicant's response to the Perteet peer review (Ex. 8-9). The peer review recommended pedestrian improvements south of the development. They also addressed comments from the 26 neighbor (Ex. 10-11). Mr. Lincoln stated the SEPA mitigation required the applicant to pay a pro- SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-2 I rata share of the intersection improvement at Lake Washington Boulevard N. and Gene Coulon Park 2 entrance. He noted they were being double charged for these improvements because they are being asked to pay both a proportionate share and the full traffic impact fee which includes the intersection 3 improvements. Mr. Lincoln requested the conditions of approval reflect a credit toward the 4 transportation impact fees to reflect the applicant's pro-rata costs for the Lake Washington Boulevard N. at Gene Coulon park entrance intersection improvements. 5 With respect to parking, Mr. Lincoln stated the ITE standard for hotels is an average occupancy of 6 63% with a peak of 72% in June and July. At one space per room, they need about 75 spaces plus spaces for staff parking (6 spaces). They need about 80-90 spaces during peak occupancy, rather7thanthe105proposedand111required. They are also planning on doing a shuttle service, but there 8 is not data available to estimate the impact of a shuttle service on parking need. 9 Mr. Lincoln talked about the transportation impact analysis (Ex. 8). He stated the analysis had followed the City's guidelines with respect to intersection impact. The project will not increase 10 traffic impacts at any area intersections in excess of 5%. 11 Lauren Nestrud, the applicant's architect, discussed Staff condition #11. This item discussed 12 transparency of windows and a continuous canopy that mimicked the roof line. They have specific design concerns about this condition because of structural concerns and creating a cohesive facade. 13 There are also significant water intrusion concerns. They want to work with the City and also proposed to expand the canopies and increase the window glazing. 14 Ms. Timmons stated staff has no issue with the applicant's request. She proposed elimination of the15secondsentenceintheconditiontoallowtheapplicant's proposed revisions and to give flexibility 16 for the staff and applicant to work together. The applicant concurred. 17 Ms. Nestrud stated the applicant has resolved the parking issue with regard to the refuse and recycling area (Ex. 20). There is no longer a conflict. They will expand the square footage of the 18 trash and recycling to meet the conditions of approval. They will meet the 105 parking spaces. Staff concurred with the revision. 19 20 Scott Clark, the applicant's architect, stated the applicant has revised the storm drainage system to include a new detention vault (Ex. 21). They have repurposed a storage area to accommodate a new 21 vault which will discharge at the lowest portion of the lot. No further improvements to the existing public drainage system are anticipated. 22 In response to the examiner, Mr. Clark stated meeting the 111 required parking spaces would require23additionalparkingtobeplacedintheexistingcriticalareas. This is both a sensitive area and the 24 most expensive area on site to build. The requested parking reduction is adequate for serving the needs to the project while minimizing impacts to critical areas. 25 Mr. Ray Coglas, the applicant's geotechnical engineer, stated his role in the project began with an 26 initial site investigation (Ex. 7). There are steep slopes on the project. They analyzed the parking SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 3 I versus the slope areas. They drilled deep borings and performed stability analysis to determine the 2 impact of construction on the slope areas. The property has been historically disturbed. It might have been an old gravel pit. When the I-405 off ramp at Sunset was constructed, the steep slopes were3created. At one point the site was entirely cleared. The site is inherently stable. The post construction 4 stability will be safe, even with the small encroachment into the critical areas. 5 In response to the examiner, Mr. Coglas stated they identified groundwater and monitored the levels to determine how that might interact with the building structure. The groundwater does have discreet 6 perched zones which might create shallow seeps. At depth, the groundwater table is about 2.5 to 3 feet above the bottom of the structure. The deposit is very compact and the porosity of the soil is7low. They will have to provide drainage under the slab post construction and deposit into the vault. 8 They feel they have been conservative. The slope will be stable post construction and groundwater will be managed. 9 Staff Rebuttal 10 Ms. Timmons stated she had four outstanding items. With respect to parking, Ms. Timmons stated11staffpresentedthisproposal, along with others to the City Council in late 2014. She wanted to relay 12 the Council's concerns with parking in the immediate vicinity and their desire to have 1:1 stalls per room. There are major parking concerns in the area. Council wanted to see 105 spaces to go with 13 105 rooms. This is what the applicant proposed. 14 With respect to the traffic impact fee, Ms. Timmons stated the request for the fair share proportion of the intersection improvements is a SEPA mitigation measure, not a condition of approval for this15project. She stated the fair share costs will be very small because there are very few trips from this 16 project. 17 Ms. Timmons discussed the public comment letter. She said many of the conditions in the recommendation require the applicant to shore up their transportation analysis. In general, the 18 provided TIA is adequate. 19 The City feels the site will work from a geotechnical perspective. There will be additional review at 20 the engineering stage. 21 Mr. Steve Lee, the City's development engineering manager, spoke to the credit towards the mitigation fee. He suggested there needs to be a rate study from the applicant. SECO is bearing the22fullshareoftheintersectionimprovementandareinterestedinaLatecomersAgreement. The traffic mitigation fees take into account the entire area, rather than just this specific intersection. The City23doesnotusuallyrequirebotharegionaltransportationimpactfeeandlocalimprovements. This is 24 why they made the SEPA mitigation measure to capture both. 25 The City will approve a discharge downstream of the vault forjust the groundwater. 26 Ms. Timmons stated the impact fees ordinance allows no credits for construction improvements SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-4 I toward impact fees. Though Southport had this arrangement in their development agreement, the 2 code has since changed. Ms. Timmons encouraged the examiner to read the specific ordinance. They 3 do not believe there is an opportunity for credit. 4 Applicant Rebuttal 5 Brad Lincoln, provided a response to the SEPA mitigation and a requested to apply credit for the intersection improvements (SEPA Mitigation Measure #4) to the transportation impact fee (Ex. 22). 6 Even with all the pipeline developments, only Southport triggers the threshold for improvements at the Lake Washington Boulevard N. at Gene Coulon entrance intersection. Under the code, there 7 would be no need for the present development to improve the intersection. They should not have to 8 pay for the intersection improvement but are required by the SEPA migration measure which cannot be changed now since there was no appeal. Therefore, they are requesting a credit for the pro-rata 9 share toward their transportation impact fees so that they are not double charged. No other development is being required to pay a pro-rate share of the intersection. This is an unfair impact 10 that is arbitrary. 11 EXHIBITS 12 The April 7, 2015 staff report Exhibits 1-15 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were 13 admitted into the record during the hearing. The staff PowerPoint was admitted as Exhibit 19 14 during the hearing. The following additional exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: 15 Exhibit 20: Revised Parking Plan Exhibit 21: Drainage Plan 16 Exhibit 22: Traffic Response to SEPA Mitigation Measures 17 FINDINGS OF FACT 18 Procedural: 19 20 1. Applicant. The applicant is Faizel Kassam of Legacy Renton. 21 2. Hearing. The Examiner held a hearing on the subject application on April 7, 2015 at 11:00 am in the City of Renton Council Chambers. 22 3. Project Description. The applicant is proposing to construct a 105 guest room hotel and 23 structured parking area. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Washington Blvd N 24 just north of Houser Way N at 1300 Lake Washington Blvd N. The project site totals 55,000sf feet in area and is located within the Urban Center North - 2 (UC-N2) zone and Design District 'C'. The 25 majority of the site is currently undeveloped. However, there is a paved espresso stand drive-thru 26 which exists on the site and is proposed for demolition. Access to the site would be via a single curb cut from Lake Washington Boulevard N. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 5 1 The total square footage of the proposed building is 108,800sf (including parking garage square 2 footage). The proposed hotel height is 5 stories above the front ground floor grade. A total of 105 3 parking stalls would be primarily provided in a two-level below grade parking garage with two stalls provided at grade in a small surface parking area. The applicant is requesting a modification from 4 RMC 4-4-080 in order to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 111 to 105 stalls. Access 5 is proposed via Lake Washington Blvd N. 6 There are approximately 42 significant trees located on site. The applicant proposes to retain 34 trees. The site contains critical and sensitive slopes. Additionally, the site is located in an erosion 7 hazard area and a moderate landslide hazard area. The site is located within a High Erosion Hazard 8 area and an unclassified Landslide Hazard Area. Moderate and protected slopes, which exceed a 40%grade, are also located on site. The steep slopes occupy most of the northeast portion of the site. 9 The protected slopes make up an approximate 24,OOOsf area, representing 56% of the subject site. 10 The applicant is requesting a variance in order to encroach into critical slopes on site (4,185 square feet). 11 Approximately 40,OOOcy of material would be cut on site and approximately 5,OOOcy of fill is 12 proposed to be brought into the site. Following construction, the impervious cover would be 13 approximately 44%. 14 The applicant is requesting a modification from RMC 4-6-060 in order to reduce the amount of right-of-way dedication from 11.5 feet to 2.5 feet along Lake Washington Blvd N. Another variance 15 is requested in order to increase the maximum front yard setback from 5-feet to 22 feet and 9-inches. 16 The City's Environmental Review Committee issued s SEPA Determination of Non-Significant 17 Impact — Mitigated on March 16, 2015. The DNS-M included six mitigation measures. No appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 18 19 The City received a public comment letter(Ex. 10), which commented on transportation impacts and mitigation. The City's Staff Report recommended Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report (Ex. 20 18) attempt to address the issues raised in the comment letter. 21 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate 22 infrastructure and public services as follows: 23 A. Water and Sewer Service. The site is served by the City of Renton for all water and sewer service. There are existing water and sewer mains and partial storm drainage improvements in 24 Lake Washington Boulevard N. The water main is 12 inches. The sewer main is 8 inches and is 25 of sufficient size to support the proposed development. The system development fee for sewer is based on the size of the new domestic water to serve the project. The preliminary fire flow 26 demand for the proposed development is 2,500 gpm. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 6 1 2 B. Fire and Police. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to 3 furnish services to the proposed development; if the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees. A Fire Impact Fee, based on the new square footage of non-residential 4 area is required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. 5 The applicant would be required to pay an appropriate Fire Impact Fee. 6 C. Drainage. Storm drainage is adequately addressed by the proposal. The site is located within 7 the Lake Washington Drainage basin. Runoff from the site currently drains to the southwest of the project site and then travels along Lake Washington Blvd N. before it eventually heads 8 north via roadside ditches and several culverts eventually discharging directly into Lake 9 Washington. 10 The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage plan and drainage report (Ex. 6) and a revised drainage report (Ex. 21). Though the applicant had initially intended to utilize the City'sI1 existing storm drainage system, the applicant has revised the drainage plan to route stormwater 12 into an on-site detention vault which eventually discharges into the City's drainage system. 13 D. Transportation. Traffic impacts are adequately mitigated by the proposal. Level of service 14 standards will not be reduced below adopted levels for the proposal and traffic impact fees will 15 be assessed to pay for proportionate share transportation system impacts. 16 The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (Ex. 8) and a Traffic Response to SEPA Mitigation Measures (Ex. 22) which addressed concerns expressed by the City's third party17reviewerandbystaffintheStaffReport(Ex. 18). 18 Staff note there are several proposed developments in the project vicinity which together will19reducethelevelofservice (LOS) at the intersection of Lake Washington Boulevard North and 20 Houser Way at the entrance to Gene Coulon Park. The proposal itself will not significantly reduce the intersection LOS. The intersection fails (LOS F) only under the circumstance21whereinthetrafficfromtheSouthportDevelopmentisincludedatconservativelyhightraffic 22 volumes. When more realistic projections from the Southport development are included in the analysis, the LOS at this intersection is LOS E or better. The proposed development by itself is23notexpectedtoimpacttheLOSatthisintersection. No other nearby intersection service levels 24 will see an increase of more than 5% in PM peak hour volumes and therefore no further analysis is required for other nearby intersections. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 7 1 Despite the anticipated lack of project level impacts from this project on the Lake Washington 2 Boulevard North and Houser Way intersection, the City's Environmental Review Committee 3 imposed a SEPA mitigation measure requiring the applicant to pay a pro-rated share of the traffic signal and roadway improvements costs for the intersection, which is currently being 4 constructed by SECO Development. The proposed project is required to pay its pro-rata share 5 based on the ratio of the number of trips added by the project to the number of future baseline trips at the Southport/Gene Coulon Park Entrance/Lake Washington Boulevard N. intersection. 6 The applicant anticipates the proposed development will account for approximately 2.69% of 7 trips. 8 The applicant has requested a hearing examiner Condition of Approval that would reduce the required traffic impact mitigation fees to remove the duplicate fees imposed by the SEPA9 condition. The City testified that though this is exactly what they did for Southport, they are no 10 longer able to provide a traffic mitigation fee reduction to account for physical construction of improvements or payment towards physical construction by a third party because they are11prohibitedbytheRMCfromdoingso. They note the relevant code was enacted after the 12 Southport Development Agreement. Contrary to the City's testimony, RMC 4-1-190(J)(1) does in fact allow for credit towards impact fees based on the value of system improvements paid for 13 by the applicant provided the applicant receives administrative or Hearing Examiner approval 14 RMC 4-1-190(L)). 15 E. Parkin. The RMC requires a total of 111 parking spaces (one per guest room and one for every 16 three employees). The applicant and staff have agreed to a proposed parking modification to allow for 105 parking spaces based on a revised parking plan (Ex. 20) and the ITE Manual's 17 occupancy rates projections. The ITE Manual anticipates average demand of approximately 18 57% of the required spaces based on average anticipated occupancy rates (Ex. 14). The 105 19 parking spaces represent a 5%reduction from the RMC required number of spaces. 20 F. Bicycle Stalls. Eleven bicycle stalls are required and proposed, however it is unclear if the proposal provides fixed structures for locking individual bikes. The applicant will be required to 21 submit a bicycle parking detail during building permit approval. 22 G. Vehicular Access and Internal Circulation. The proposal provides for a single curb cut on Lake 23 Washington Boulevard N at the south end of the site. The location of the curb cut minimizes 24 conflict with adjacent uses by placing the entrance as far as physically possible from adjoining uses. Parking will be accomplished almost entirely via an underground structured parking 25 garage with an entrance at the rear of the building, thus funneling on-site traffic in an orderly 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 8 I manner. There is also a porte-cochere for guest drop off and pick up. Service elements are 2 located within the building(Ex. 20)to reduce conflicts with parking and pedestrian circulation. 3 H. Pedestrian Circulation. There are existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the subject vicinity 4 including bike lanes on both sides of Lake Washington Blvd N and existing contiguous 5 sidewalk to the north of the project(Exhibit 8). The applicant will construct sidewalks along the site frontage connecting to the existing sidewalk system to the north. There is a lack of 6 pedestrian facilities between the site and the intersection of Lake Washington Blvd N at the 7 Gene Coulon Park entrance/Houser Way intersection. A SEPA mitigation measure was requires the applicant to provide a surety device to provide pedestrian improvements between 8 the site and the Lake Washington Blvd at the Gene Coulon Park entrance /Houser Way. If, within two years, the pedestrian connection is constructed as part of the development of the 9 abutting parcel to the south, the provided surety device will be released. If the pedestrian 10 connection is not constructed prior to the termination of the two year period, the funds will be 11 released to the City of Renton for the construction of the pedestrian connection. 12 I. Landscaping. The applicant submitted a proposed landscaping plan that substantially meets the code requirements (Ex. 3). However, the plan did not specify the vegetation proposed for use in13 planters in common areas and the proposed green screens separating patios on the upper floors. 14 More significantly, the plan did not include landscaping for the critical slope areas proposed for clearing. Prior to engineering permit approval, the applicant will be required to submit a revised15landscapingplandepictingsignificantlandscapingalongthestreetfrontage, within planters 16 adjacent to the building or within common open spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape 17 plan will also include a planting plan for cleared areas which enhance slope stability. 18 J. Refuse Enclosure. The code requires a total of 201 sf of recycle area and 402sf of refuse area based on a total of 66,929sf of hotel space. The applicant has proposed only 338sf of the 19 required 603sf total refuse and recycling area. A condition of approval will require the applicant 20 either to comply with the code or request an administrative variance prior to building permit approval. A conflict between the proposed refuse and recycling area and the parking area has21beenresolved(Ex. 20). 22 K. Building Entries. The applicant has proposed to construct a pedestrian plaza along Lake 23 Washington Boulevard North. This will serve as a focal point for the development and create a 24 visually prominent entry. The main entrance of the building will be under a porte-cochere. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will provide a detailed common open space/plaza 25 plan detailing the proposed urban amenities (art, lighting, fixtures, landscaping). 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 9 I L. Building Facades. As noted in the Staff Report (Ex. 18), the building largely complies with the 2 City's design standards for modulation, articulation, defined entrances and display windows. 3 The building is well modulated to give a less bulky appearance and to provide visual interest. Staff expressed concern related to how the HVAC units will integrate into the window frames 4 and whether these will provide a monotonous appearance to the facade. Prior to building permit 5 approval, the applicant will be required to provide a more detailed window design plan. 6 M. Building Materials. Though the applicant has proposed the use of a variety of materials, the 7 elevations the applicant provided are too conceptual in nature. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be required to provide a materials board for various elements of the8 proposed facade and structures such as retaining walls for review and approval by the Current 9 Planning Project Manager. 10 N. Ground Level Details. As proposed, the entry to the building is not prominent and does not 11 meet the overall building design in the UC-N2 zone and design district. Some human scale elements are provided, and as noted elsewhere, more detailed plans will be required for the 12 building entries and urban amenities. In addition to these features, the applicant will be required 13 to present more detailed elevations depicting added architectural detailing elements along the 14 ground floor and street facing facade. 15 O. Roof Lines. The proposed design for the building has morphed throughout the review process. The most recent iteration depicts a flatter shed roof than previous designs. To provide a more 16 visually appealing roof line, the applicant will be required to submit building Plans depicting a 17 higher pitched roof prior to building permit approval. 18 P. Recreation and Common Open Spaces. The building is over 30,OOOsf and therefore a pedestrian 19 oriented space is required. As noted above, the applicant proposes a plaza along the street frontage. There will be a total of 3,700sf of passive and active open space on site which will 20 accommodate both hotel patrons and the public. Landscaping along the edge of the plaza will 21 soften the sidewalk and complement the entry plaza. As noted above, a more detailed plan for 22 the proposed urban amenities will be required prior to building permit approval. 23 Q. Equipment Screening. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be required to 24 provide details for screening of surface and roof mounted equipment. 25 R. Signage. Though ,the applicant provided a proposed sign package, the plan the applicant 26 provided is too conceptual in nature. Prior to building permit approval, the applicant will be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 10 I required to provide a signage package indicating the location of all exterior building signage 2 and which demonstrates compatibility with the building's architecture and exterior finishes. 3 S. Lighting. It appears through various elements of the submittal package that the applicant intends 4 to comply with the City's lighting standards. However, the applicant did not provide a specific 5 lighting plan. The applicant will be required to submit a lighting plan at the time of building permit review. 6 7 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. Few adverse impacts are anticipated. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of 8 Fact No. 4. The SEPA MDNS mitigation measures in the Environmental Report(Ex. 1) are adopted as Conditions of Approval. Adoption of Ex. 18 encompasses both the Findings of Fact and the 9 Conclusions of Law of Staff. All other adverse impacts discernible from the record are also fully 10 mitigated. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: 11 A. Reduced Frontage Setbacks. The UC-N2 zone has a maximum front yard setback of five feet. The proposed building would have a 22 ft, 9 in front setback. The setback is necessary to 12 accommodate an existing 15 ft wide utility easement and to allow for a better, more functional design for the pedestrian plaza. The proposal minimizes, to the extent possible, impacts to the 13 protected slopes on the northeastern portion of the site. The proposed building setback is also in 14 keeping with surrounding development patterns for building massing. 15 B. Right of Way Dedication. The existing right of way on Lake Washington Boulevard N. is 60 feet. The RMC (4-6-060) requires a right of way dedication to increase the right of way width to 16 83 feet. However, the City's actual plans for this location do not match the code requirements. The City's Transportation Department has a specific corridor plan for Lake Washington 17 Boulevard N. that includes a minimum right of way width of 69 feet, rather than 83 feet. Instead of the general code required dedication of 11.5 feet, the applicant has requested a 4.5 foot right 18 of way dedication to meet the more specific corridor plan. The City plans require only 17 feet 19 from the roadway centerline to match the existing curb on the north side of the subject site while still providing for adequate sidewalk width and landscaping. Staff concurs with the 20 applicant's request and note that the reduced right of way dedication serves to reduce the impact on critical area slopes by pushing the building as far forward as feasibly possible. 21 C. Reduced Critical Areas Setbacks. There are 24,OOOsf of critical slopes on the site. These were 22 created by WSDOT during the I-405 widening project. The applicant is proposing to encroach 23 into 4,185sf of the critical slopes. The applicant provided a geotechnical report (Ex. 7) which demonstrated no signs of recent large scale erosion or slope stability issues as the subject site. 24 There were signs of steep to near vertical reliefs, all of which proved stable. Subsurface soils demonstrate strength. The City does not anticipate any detriment to the public welfare or safety 25 provided the building's structural foundations are constructed according to the proposed plan. The plan will likely result in increased safety at the site. As noted above in FOF 5A, the26proposedbuildingissituatedasfarforwardaspossiblewhilestillfailingtoencroachonthe SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 11 I existing utility easement and provide for a functional pedestrian amenity. The proposed setback 2 is the minimum amount necessary to meet the objectives of the UC-N2 zone while protecting the critical slopes. To ensure adequate safety, the applicant will be required to submit a revised3geotechnicalreportpriortoengineeringapproval. The report will note proposed impacts to the 4 slopes and any changes to the recommendations to ensure safety, slope stability, and flow control. 5 Conclusions of Law 6 7 1. Authority. Master Site Plan Approvals, Site Plan Review and Variances associated with Hearing Examiner Review are each Type III decisions determined by the hearing examiner (RMC 4- 8 8-080(G)). The site plan, variance and modification applications of this proposal have been 9 consolidated. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to each be processed under "the highest-number procedure". The site plan and variance applications have the highest numbered 10 review procedures, so all three applications must be processed as Type III applications. As Type III 11 applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council. 12 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The property is zoned Urban Center North — 2 13 (UC-N2). The Comprehensive Plan designation is Urban Center North. 14 3. Review Criteria. Master Site Plan Review and Site Plan Review are required in the UC-N2 15 zone (RMC 4-9-200(B)(1) and RMC 4-9-200(B)(2)(a)). Master Site Plan and Site Plan Reviews are governed by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3). Variance approval is governed by RMC 4-9-250(B)(5).16 Modifications are governed by RMC 4-9-250(D)(2). The review of the appeal of the administrative 17 decision is governed by RMC 4-8-110(E)(12)(b). All applicable criteria are quoted below in italics 18 and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 19 Master Site Plan/Site Plan 20 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee mustfind a proposedproject to be in 21 compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals,22 including: 23 i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and 24 policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design 25 Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; 26 ii. Applicable land use regulations; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 12 1 iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and 2 iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-3 100. 4 4. The proposal is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, City of Renton 5 zoning regulations and design guidelines as outlined in Findings 19, 20, and 25 of the staff report, which is adopted by this reference as if set forth in full, including the findings and conclusions. 6 7 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: 8 i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a 9 particular portion of the site; 10 ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways 11 and adjacent properties; 12 iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, 13 rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surroundingproperties; 14 iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility15toattractivenaturalfeatures; 16 u Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and 17 surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance 18 the appearance ofthe project; and 19 vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 20 5. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(K-0), the building has been designed to reduce the 21 apparent bulk and provide visual interest through the use of varied materials and modification of the 22 facade. The building uses less of the site than would otherwise be required by code and places parking in a structured garage underground. The building is placed to reduce the impact on on-site 23 critical slopes while providing for a pedestrian plaza and other urban amenities along the property's frontage. As noted in Fining of Fact No. 4(G and H), the proposal involves a single curb cut on Lake 24 Washington Boulevard North while also providing frontage improvements to match the existing curb line. The pedestrian plaza and porte-cochere will enhance the pedestrian experience. As noted 25 in Finding of Fact No. 4(J and Q), loading and storage areas, refuse collection and roof equipment 26 will be screened and will not interfere with pedestrian circulation or parking. There are not significant views from this property. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(I), landscaping will be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 13 I provided on the critical slopes, around the building, in the pedestrian plaza and on the frontage. As 2 noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(S), lighting will be designed to avoid glare on to adjacent properties or streets while providing safe illumination for site users. 3 4 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts:Mitigation ofimpacts to the site, including: 5 i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; 6 7 ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale ofproposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian 8 and vehicle needs; 9 iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation 10 and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and 11 iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance ofparking areas, to provide12 shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to 13 enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection ofplanting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian 14 movements. 15 6. As noted in the Staff Report (Ex. 18), the entrance to the proposed hotel is located as far away 16 as feasible from existing residential uses. The building also steps back from the north property line to provide a transition to the live/work area to the north. The building setback and orientation will 17 provide privacy to guests and existing residents. Once operational, no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed building is smaller in scale than what is allowable under the code and is designed to 18 reduce the visual bulk of the building through varied materials and facade modulation. The 19 pedestrian plaza will be visually appealing from the property's frontage. The proposal does impact the on-site steep slopes, but the impact is the least feasible to allow development of the site. 20 Adequate landscaping in the pedestrian plaza and frontage is proposed. Parking will be structured. 21 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all 22 users, including: 23 i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation ofingress and egress points on the 24 site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 14 1 ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, 2 including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, 3 drives,parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; 4 iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; 5 6 iv. Transit and Bicycles:Providing transit, carpools and bicyclefacilities and access; and 7 v Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings,public sidewalks and adjacentproperties. 8 9 7. The proposal provides for adequate access and circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E-H). 10 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project 11 focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users 12 ofthe site. 13 8. The proposal provides for common open space that serves as a distinctive project focal point and also provides for passive recreation as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4(N and P). A primary 14 feature of the proposal is a pedestrian plaza. 15 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to 16 shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17 9. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal. 18 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural 19 systems where applicable. 20 10. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), the proposal impacts critical slopes, though the impact is the minimum necessary to allow feasible development of the site. As conditioned, the project21providesforadequatepublicsafetyandwelfare. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the 22 drainage system has been designed as a vault system which will allow the project to discharge into 23 natural drainage courses via the City's existing storm drainage system. 24 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 25 11. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No.26 4(A and B). SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 15 1 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases 2 and estimated timeframes,for phasedprojects. 3 12. The project is not phased. 4 Urban Design Regulations 5 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(1) Building Location and Orientation: 6 1. The availability of natural light (both direct and reflected) and direct sun exposure to 7 nearby buildings and open space (except parking areas) shall be considered when siting structures. 8 2. Buildings shall be oriented to the street with clear connections to the sidewalk. 9 3. The front entry of a building shall be oriented to the street or a landscaped pedestrian-10 only courtyard. 11 4. Buildings with residential uses located at the street level shall be set back from the 12 sidewalk a minimum of ten feet (10) and feature substantial landscaping between the sidewalk and the building or have the ground floor residential uses raised above street 13 levelfor residents privacy. 14 13. The proposed structure is located in the only location on the site that is feasible for development given the constraints of the critical areas and existing utility easement. The building15willfeatureapedestrianplazaaccessiblefromthefrontagesidewalkandaPorte-cochere with 16 pedestrian amenities. As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied. 17 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(2) Building Entries: 18 1. A primary entrance ofeach building shall be: 19 a. located on the facade facing a street, shall be prominent, visible from the street, 20 connected by a walkway to the public sidewalk, and include human-scale elements. 21 b. made visibly prominent by incorporating architectural features such as a facade overhang, trellis, large entry doors, and/or ornamental lighting. 22 2. Building entries from a street shall be clearly marked with canopies, architectural 23 elements, ornamental lighting, or landscaping and include weather protection at least four and one-halffeet wide. Buildings that are taller than thirtyfeet (30) in height shall 24 also ensure that the weather protection is proportional to the distance above ground level. 25 4. Features such as entries, lobbies, and display windows shall be oriented to a street or 26 pedestrian-oriented space; otherwise, screening or decorative features should be incorporated. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 16 1 14. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(K), the building's primary entrance is proposed to be 2 located along the site's only road frontage. The primary entrance will be a porte-cochere adjacent to a pedestrian plaza with landscaping and urban amenities. The applicant has stated that canopies, 3 architectural elements and ornamental lighting will be employed at the entrances to clearly identify 4 them as the primary pedestrian entry points into the building. The applicant has proposed a variety of materials to enhance the ground level effect. As noted in FOF No. 4(K-M), as conditioned, these 5 criteria are satisfied. 6 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(3) Transition to Surrounding Development: 7 1. At least one of the following design elements shall be considered to promote a transition to surrounding uses: 8 9 a) Buildingproportions, including step-backs on upper levels; 10 b) Building articulation to divide a larger architectural element into smaller increments; or 11 c) Roof lines, roofpitches, and roof shapes designed to,reduce apparent bulk and transition with existing development. 12 Additionally, the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development or 13 designee may require increased setbacks at the side or rear ofa building in order to reduce the bulk 14 and scale oflarger buildings and/or so that sunlight reaches adjacent and/or abutting yards. 15 15. As conditioned and described in Findings of Fact No. 4(L and O),this criterion is satisfied. 16 RMC 4-3-100(E)(1)(4) Service Element Location and Design: 17 1. Service elements shall be located and designed to minimize the impacts on the pedestrian environment and adjacent uses. Service elements shall be concentrated and located where 18 they are accessible to service vehicles and convenientfor tenant use. 19 16. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(J), the proposed refuse and recycle deposit areas are located within the proposed structure and will not impact parking. No impacts to the pedestrian20environmentoradjacentusesareanticipated. 21 RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(2) Structured Parking Garages: 22 1. Parking structures shall provide space for ground floor commercial uses along street 23 frontages at a minimum ofseventyfive percent (75%) ofthe buildingfrontage width. 24 17. This criterion is satisfied as the entire use is commercial in nature. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 17 I RMC 4-3-100(E)(2)(3) Vehicular Access: 2 1. Access to parking lots and garages shall be from alleys, when available. If not available, 3 access shall occur at side streets. 4 2. The number of driveways and curb cuts shall be minimized, so that pedestrian circulation 5 along the sidewalk is minimally impeded. 6 18. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4(G), all access is from a single curb cut. This criterion is satisfied. 7 RMC 4-3-100(E)(3)(1) Pedestrian Circulation: 8 1. A pedestrian circulation system of pathways that are clearly delineated and connect 9 buildings, open space, and parking areas with the sidewalk system and abutting properties 10 shall be provided. 11 a. Pathways shall be located so that there are clear sight lines, to increase safety. 12 b. Pathways shall be an all-weather or permeable walking surface, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed surface is appropriate for the anticipated number of users 13 and complementary to the design ofthe development. 14 19. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(H), pedestrian circulation to and throughout the site will be enhanced by the pedestrian plaza, porte-cochere and the placement of parking in a structured15undergroundgarage. As conditioned,this criterion is satisfied. 16 RMC 4-3-100(E)(3)(3) Pedestrian Circulation: 17 1. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of buildings shall be of sufficient width to 18 accommodate anticipated numbers ofusers. Specifically: 19 a. Sidewalks and pathways along the facades of mixed use and retail buildings one hundred 100) or more feet in width (measured along the facade) shall provide sidewalks at least 20 twelve feet (12) in width. The pathway shall include an eightfoot (8) minimum 21 unobstructed walking surface. 22 b. Interior pathways shall be provided and shall vary in width to establish a hierarchy. The widths shall be based on the intended number of users; to be no smaller than five feet (5) 23 and no greater than twelvefeet (12). 24 20. The proposed hotel use is neither mixed use nor retail in nature. As proposed, this criterion is met. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 18 I RMC 4-3-100(E)(4) Recreation Areas and Common Open Space: 2 2. All buildings and developments with over thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of 3 nonresidential uses (excludes parking garage floorplate areas) shall provide pedestrian- 4 oriented space. 5 a. The pedestrian-oriented space shall be provided according to the following formula: I%ofthe site area + I%of the gross building area, at minimum. 6 b. The pedestrian-oriented space shall include all ofthe following: 7 i. Visual and pedestrian access (including barrierfree access) to the abutting 8 structuresfrom the public right-of-way or a nonvehicular courtyard; and 9 ii. Paved walking surfaces ofeither concrete or approved unit paving; and 10 iii. On-site or building-mounted lighting providing at least four (4)foot-candles 11 average) on the ground; and 12 iv. At least three (3) lineal feet of seating area (bench, ledge, etc.) or one individual seat per sixty (60) squarefeet ofplaza area or open space. 13 c. The following areas shall not count aspedestrian-oriented space. 14 i. The minimum required walkway. However, where walkways are widened or 15 enhanced beyond minimum requirements, the area may count as pedestrian- 16 oriented space if the Administrator determines such space meets the definition ofpedestrian-oriented space. 17 21. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4(H, N and P) above, the applicant is proposing a 18 pedestrian plaza adjacent to the project frontage and accessible from the street. The plaza meets the size, access and materials requirements. Other urban amenities are proposed. As conditioned, these 19 criteria are satisfied. 20 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(1) Building Character and Massing: 21 1. All building facades shall include modulation or articulation at intervals of no. more than 22 fortyfeet (40). 23 2. Modulations shall be a minimum of two feet (2) deep, sixteen feet (16) in height, and eight feet (8) in width. 24 3. Buildings greater than one hundred sixty feet (160) in length shall provide a variety of25modulationsandarticulationstoreducetheapparentbulkandscaleofthefacade; or provide an additional special feature such as a clock tower, courtyard,fountain, or public gathering26area. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 19 1 22. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(L), and as proposed and conditioned, these criteria are satisfied. 2 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(2) Ground-Level Details: 3 1. Human-scaled elements such as a lightingfixture, trellis, or other landscape feature shall be 4 provided along thefacade's groundfloor. 5 2. On any facade visible to the public, transparent windows and/or doors are required to 6 comprise at least 50 percent of the portion of the groundfloor facade that is between 4 feet and 8feet above ground(as measured on the true elevation). 7 3. Upper portions of buildingfacades shall have clear windows with visibility into and out of the 8 building. However, screening may be applied to provide shade and energy efficiency. The 9 minimum amount oflight transmittance for windows shall be 50percent. 4. Display windows shall be designed for frequent change of merchandise, rather than10permanentdisplays. 11 5. Where windows or storefronts occur, they must principally contain clear glazing. 12 6. Tinted and dark glass, highly reflective (mirror-type)glass andfilm are prohibited. 13 23. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4(M, N, P, R and S) above, human-scaled elements such as 14 lighting fixtures or other landscape features are proposed. However, the elements are not apparent on the provided elevations (Exhibit 4). Additional human scale elements are needed in order to 15 reinforce a pedestrian oriented development and enhance the commercial portion of the project at 16 the street front. Conditions of approval require the applicant to submit revised elevations addressing window HVAC units, lighting, signage, urban amenities and building materials. 17 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(3) Building Roof Lines: Buildings shall use at least one of the following 18 elements to create varied and interesting roofprofiles: 19 a. Extended parapets; 20 b. Feature elements projecting above parapets; 21 c. Projected cornices; 22 d. Pitched or sloped roofs 23 e. Buildings containing predominantly residential uses shall have pitched roofs with a minimum 24 slope of one to four (1:4) and shall have dormers or interesting roofforms that break up the massiveness ofan uninterrupted sloping roof. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-20 1 24. The applicant has proposed a shed style roof. As noted in Finding of Fact 4(0) above, the 2 applicant will be required to provide a roofline with a greater pitch. As conditioned, this criterion is satisfied. 3 4 RMC 4-3-100(E)(5)(4) Building Materials: 5 1. All sides of buildings visible from a street, pathway, parking area, or open space shall be finished on all sides with the same building materials, detailing, and color scheme, or if 6 different, with materials ofthe same quality. 7 2. All buildings shall use material variations such as colors, brick or metal banding,patterns or textural changes. 8 3. Materials shall be durable, high quality, and consistent with more traditional urban 9 development, such as brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-finished metal, stone, 10 steel, glass and cast-in-place concrete. 11 25. The applicant has proposed a building exterior with varied colors, textures, and profiles. However, the applicant did not provide sufficient detail to allow the City to envision the final look 12 of the structure. The applicant will be required to provide a materials board for City review as noted above in Finding of Fact No. 4(M). 13 Acceptable materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre-14 finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other high quality material. Full brick- 15 sized material should be encouraged for at least the street level fagade to ensure durable materials are applied in high traffic pedestrian locations. Any non-brick masonry finishes proposed at the 16 ground level that may be accessible to humans should be anti-graffiti coating applied to ensure easy removal of graffiti. If this condition of approval is met,the proposal would satisfy this standard. 17 RMC 4-3-100(E)(6) Signage: 18 19 1. Entry signs shall be limited to the name ofthe larger development. 20 2. Corporate logos and signs shall be sized appropriatelyfor their location. 21 3. In mixed use and multi-use buildings, signage shall be coordinated with the overall building design. 22 4. Freestanding ground-related monument signs, with the exception ofprimary entry signs, shall 23 be limited tofive feet(5) abovefinished grade, including support structure. 24 5. Freestanding signs shall include decorative landscaping (ground cover and/or shrubs) to provide seasonal interest in the area surrounding the sign. Alternately, signage may25incorporatestone, brick, or other decorative materials as approved by the Director. 26 6. All ofthe following are prohibited: SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-21 I a. Pole signs; 2 b. Roofsigns; and 3 c. Back-lit signs with letters or graphics on a plastic sheet (can signs or illuminated cabinet 4 signs). Exceptions: Back-lit logo signs less than ten (10) square feet are permitted as area 5 signs with only the individual letters back-lit (see illustration, subsection G8 of this Section). 6 26. Signage has not yet been fully designed for the proposed project. As described in Finding of 7 Fact No. 4(R) and as a condition of approval, the applicant is required to submit a comprehensive signage package. Locations and supports are required to be compatible with the building's 8 architecture and exterior finishes. The signage package shall be submitted to and approved by the 9 Current Planning Manager prior to sign permit approval. As conditioned, this criterion is met. 10 RMC 4-3-100(E)(7)Lighting: 11 1. Pedestrian-scale lighting shall be provided at primary and secondary building entrances. Examples include sconces on building facades, awnings with down-lighting and decorative 12 street lighting. 13 3. Accent lighting shall also be provided on building facades (such as sconces) and/or to illuminate other key elements of the site such as gateways, specimen trees, other significant 14 landscaping, waterfeatures, andlor artwork. 15 4. Downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe pedestrian and vehicular movement, 16 unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exemptfrom provisions located in RMC 4-4-075, Lighting, Exterior On- 17 Site (i.e., signage, governmental flags, temporary holiday or decorative lighting, right-of- way-lighting, etc.). 18 27. As noted in Findings of Fact No. 4(S), building lighting will be utilized to complement the19architectureofthebuilding. However, a lighting plan was not provided with the application. A 20 condition of approval requires the Applicant to provide a lighting plan which complies with the Design District standards. The plan shall indicate the location of exterior/ornamental lighting to be 21 attached to the building, including specifications and photo samples of the light fixtures. The lighting plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to 22 building permit approval. If this condition of approval is met, the proposal would satisfy this standard. 23 24 Setback Variance 25 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, 26 1 including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-22 I application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges 2 enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification; 3 28. As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 5(A), the maximum front setback in the UC-N2 zone is 4 five feet. The proposed building would have a 22 ft, 9 in front setback. A five foot setback is impossible in the subject's case because of an existing 15 ft electrical utility easement. The proposal 5 minimizes, to the extent possible, impacts to the protected slopes on the northeastern portion of the site by pushing the building as far forward as possible and placing parking in an underground 6 structure. The proposed building setback is also in keeping with surrounding development patterns for building massing. The criterion is met due to both the critical areas in the rear of the property and7theexistingeasementalongthefrontage. 8 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the 9 public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 10 29. As noted above in Conclusion of Law No. 28, the proposed setback is similar to other 11 buildings and sites within the subject's vicinity. The greater setback also facilitates placement of a 12 pedestrian plaza along the subject's frontage, an urban amenity. The public welfare will be improved by construction of the new plaza as facilitated by the increased setback. As determined in Finding of 13 Fact No. 5, no significant adverse impacts will be created by the proposal. In the absence of any significant impacts and the likely improvement in public welfare, the impacts of the variance will 14 not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the 15 vicinity and zone. 16 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject 17 property is situated; 18 30. Many of the buildings adjacent to the subject have similar setbacks due to the utility 19 easement. There is no special privilege. 20 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desiredpurpose. 21 31. The requested variance is the minimum necessary while still allowing the construction of the 22 public plaza. 23 Critical Areas Variance 24 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(a): That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, 25 including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner ofrights and privileges26enjoyedbyotherpropertyownersinthevicinityandunderidenticalzoneclassification; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-23 1 2 32. The steep slopes on the subject property were created by WSDOT during the I-405 construction. The applicant has minimized to the greatest extent feasible the impact to the slopes by3placingthebuildingasfartothefrontofthesiteaspossibleandprovidingundergroundstructured 4 parking. The impact to the slopes is the minimum necessary to allow for feasible development of the subject site. The criterion is met as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C). 5 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(b): That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the 6 public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated; 7 8 33. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(C), no significant adverse impacts will be created by the proposal. The applicant's geotechnical engineer has adequately demonstrated the slopes are 9 stable and will remain so post-construction. As conditioned, the slope impact will not result in any adverse impacts to the public health or safety. In the absence of any significant impacts, the impacts 10 of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or 11 improvements in the vicinity and zone. 12 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(c): That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject 13 property is situated; 14 34. There is no special privilege. 15 RMC 4-9-250(B)(5)(d): That the approval as determined by the Reviewing Official is a minimum 16 variance that will accomplish the desired purpose. 17 35. The requested variance is the minimum necessary to allow development of the project site as 18 contemplated in the UC-N2 zone. 19 Street Modification 20 RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions ofthis Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases 21 provided he/she shallfirstfind that a specific reason makes the strict letter ofthis Code impractical, that the intent andpurpose ofthe governing land use designation ofthe Comprehensive Plan is met22andthatthemodificationisinconformitywiththeintentandpurposeofthisCode, and that such 23 modification: 24 a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the 25 proposed modification is the minimum adjustment necessary to implement these policies and 26 objectives; SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 24 1 b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and 2 maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineeringjudgment; c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity;3 d. Conforms to the intent andpurpose ofthe Code; 4 e. Can be shown to be justified and requiredfor the use and situation intended; and f. Will not create adverse impacts to other property(ies) in the vicinity. 5 36. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons 6 identified in Finding of Fact No. 5(B). The City's corridor plan for this location requires less right of way dedication than that required by strict application of the code. The City can create adequate7rightofway, sidewalks, landscaping and curbs with the reduced right of way dedication. No adverse 8 impacts are anticipated from the proposed modification. 9 Parking Modification 10 RMC 4-9-250(D)(2): Whenever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions ofthis Title, the Department Administrator may grant modifications for individual cases11providedhe/she shallfirstfind that a specific reason makes the strict letter ofthis Code impractical, 12 that the intent andpurpose ofthe governing land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan is met and that the modification is in conformity with the intent and purpose of this Code, and that such 13 modification: 14 a. Substantially implements the policy direction of the policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element and the Community Design Element and the15proposedmodificationistheminimumadjustmentnecessarytoimplementthesepoliciesand 16 objectives; b. Will meet the objectives and safety, function, appearance, environmental protection and 17 maintainability intended by the Code requirements, based upon sound engineeringjudgment, c. Will not be injurious to other property(ies) in the vicinity; 18 d. Conforms to the intent andpurpose ofthe Code; e. Can be shown to be justified and requiredfor the use and situation intended; and19fWillnotcreateadverseimpactstootherproperty(ies) in the vicinity. 20 37. The criterion above are met for the requested modification to RMC 4-6-060 for the reasons 21 identified in Finding of Fact No. 4(E). Though the RMC requires 111 parking spaces, the applicant has reasonably proved that 105 spaces are more than adequate to meet expected demand. Both the 22 applicant and the City testified to the adequacy of the reduced number of spaces. Though there is a regional parking shortage, the reduced number of spaces is not anticipated to create adverse impacts23tootherpropertiesinthevicinityastheproposedparkingwillmorethanmeetthedemandcreated 24 by the project. 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-25 1 Impact Fee Reduction 2 3 RMC 4-1-190(G)(1): The City shall collect impact fees, based on the rates in the City's fee schedule,from any applicant seeking development approvalfrom the Cityfor any development 4 activity within the City, when such development activity requires the issuance of a building 5 permit or a permitfor a change in use, and creates a demandfor additional public facilities. 6 RMC 4-1-190(.1)(1):. A feepayer may request that a credit or credits for impact fees be 7 awarded to him/her for the total value ofsystem improvements, including dedications of land and improvements, and/or construction provided by the feepayer. Credits will be given only if 8 the land, improvements, and/or the facility constructed are: 9 a. Included within the capital facilities plan or would serve the goals and objectives of the 10 capitalfacilities plan; b. Determined by the City to be at suitable sites and constructed at acceptable quality;11 c. Serve to offset impacts of the feepayer's development activity; and 12 d. Are for one (1) or more of the projects listed in the Rate Study as the basisfor calculating the transportation impactfee. 13 14 RMC 4-1-190(L): 15 1. The Administrator's determinations with respect to the applicability of the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or value of a credit, the Administrator's decision16 concerning the independent fee calculation which is authorized in subsection H of this Section, 17 as it exists or may be amended, or any other Administrator's determination pursuant to this Section may be appealed by the feepayer to the provisions ofRMC t-Y-110E, as it exists or may18beamended. No building or change of use permits will be issued until the impactfee is paid or 19 the signed and notarized deferred impact fee application and acknowledgement form and deferral fee have been received and accepted by the City;provided, however, that thefeepayer20maypaythefeeunderprotestpendingappealtoavoiddelaysintheissuanceofbuilding 21 permits or change of use permits. 22 2. Appeals to the Hearing Examiner shall be taken in accord with the processes set forth in 23 RMC 4-8-11 OE, as it exists or may be amended 24 3. The Hearing Examiner is authorized to make findings offact regarding the applicability of 25 the impact fees to a given development activity, the availability or amount of the credit, or the 26 accuracy or applicability of an independent fee calculation. There is a presumption of validity SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 26 1 2 ofthe Administrator's determination. The feepayer has the burden ofproof during any appeal ofthe Administrator's determination or decision. 3 4 4. The Hearing Examiner may, so long as such action is in conformance with the provisions of this Section, reverse, affirm, modem or remand, in whole or in part, the Administrator's 5 determinations with respect to the amount of the impactfees imposed or the credit awarded. 6 7 RMC 4-8-110(E)(12)(b): Hearing Examiner Decision Options and Decision Criteria: The Hearing Examiner may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings, or it 8 may reverse the decision if the substantial rights of the applicant may have been prejudiced 9 because the decision is: 10 i. In violation ofconstitutionalprovisions; or 11 ii. In excess ofthe authority orjurisdiction ofthe agency; or iii. Made upon unlawful procedure; or 12 iv. Affected by other error oflaw; or 13 v. Clearly erroneous in view ofthe entire record as submitted; or 14 15 vi. Arbitrary or capricious. 16 38. The applicant has requested a credit towards their transportation impact fees (Ex. 22) resulting from the SEPA mitigation condition requiring them to pay a pro-rata share of the 17 intersection improvements at Lake Washington Boulevard North and the entrance to Gene 18 Coulon Park (Ex. 1, SEPA Mitigation Condition #4). RMC 4-1-190(J)(1) allows credits to be given if the project is included within or would serve the goals of the capital facilities plan, is 19 included in the Rate Study, is at a suitable location, and serves to offset the impacts of the 20 feepayer's development activity. 21 At the hearing the City staff testified they could not offer the applicant credit as was done with 22 Southport because the ordinance that previously allowed the credit had changed. Staff argued the new ordinance specifically prohibited allowing credit for improvements to go towards 23 transportation impact fees. Staff asked the examiner to review the ordinance. RMC 4-1-190 was 24 last amended by Ord. 5670 on October 8, 2012. The examiner could find no more recent ordinances which amended the impact fees. 25 RMC 4-1-190(L)(1) allows decisions by the administrator with respect to the applicability of26 the impact fees to a given development activity or the availability or value of a credit to be SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-27 I appealed to the examiner. The applicant presented their appeal to apply credit for the SEPA 2 mitigation measure's intersection improvements to the transportation mitigation fee at the 3 hearing as Ex. 22. Staff testified the credit could not be given because they erroneously believed they were specifically prohibited by code from doing so. However, no formal administrative 4 decision has yet been given regarding the proposed transportation impact fee reduction. As no 5 formal administrative decision on the matter has been issued, the examiner does not yet have jurisdiction to consider an appeal on the matter. 6 7 DECISION 8 The Master Site Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Parking Modification, Street Modification, Setback Variance, Critical Area Variance are approved subject to the following conditions. 9 1. The applicant shall comply with the six mitigation measures issued as part of the 10 Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated March 16, 2015. 11 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan depicting significant landscaping along the street frontage, within planters adjacent to the building or within.common open 12 spaces, and roof patio screens. The landscape plan shall also include a planting plan for 13 cleared areas which enhance slope stability. The landscaping plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to engineering permit 14 approval. 15 3. The applicant shall provide a detailed plan identifying the location and screening provided for surface and roof mounted equipment. The screening plan shall be submitted 16 to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 17 4. The proposal shall be revised to include an additional 285 square feet of area dedicated to 18 refuse and recyclables. Alternatively, the applicant may request an Administrative modification, pursuant to RMC 4-9-250, in order to reduce the square footage required. 19 The revised floor plan or Administrative Modification request shall be submitted to, and 20 approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 5. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate there is adequate area for refuse pickup 21 within the parking structure which may require the relocation of a parking stall(s). The revised floorplan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project 22 Manager prior to building permit approval. 23 6. The applicant shall be required to revise the parking plan to include a total of 105 stalls and the following: relocation of proposed stalls which would preclude refuse and recycle 24 pickup; the provision of adequate ADA accessible parking stalls; and the replacement of tandem parking spaces with direct access stalls. The revised parking plan shall be25submittedto, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building 26 permit approval. SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT-28 1 7. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting a 4.5 foot (subject to a final 2 survey) right-of-way dedication along Lake Washington Blvd N. The revised site plan shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to construction permit 3 approval. 4 8. A revised Geotechnical report shall be submitted prior to engineering permit approval noting proposed impacts to steeps slopes and any changes in recommendations 5 accordingly. The geotech report would also be required to include information regarding the stability for soil infiltration, with recommendations of appropriate flow control BMP6options. If infiltration is proposed, then falling head permeability rates are required to be 7 provided. 9. The applicant shall submit a detailed common open space/plaza plan which includes8specificationsforpedestrianamenitiesthataddtothepedestrianexperienceandthe 9 human scale intended for the development. The plan shall be submitted to, and approved by,the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 10 10. The applicant shall submit a revised elevation depicting some recess depth for each 11 window, in which the HVAC unit is abutted directly below the window and within a frame that gives the appearance that it's an integrated window system. The revised 12 elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 13 11. The applicant shall submit revised elevations depicting added architectural detailing 14 elements along the ground floor of the Lake Washington Blvd N facade. The revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager 15 prior to building permit approval. 16 12. The applicant shall increase the pitch of the shed roof element in order to strengthen the building design to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager. Revised 17 elevations shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager 18 prior to building permit approval. 13. The applicant shall submit a materials board subject to the approval of the Current 19 Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. The board shall include color and materials for the following: guardrails, fagade treatments, retaining walls,20 raised planters, metal screens, sunshades, windows/frames, and columns. Acceptable 21 materials include a combination of brick, integrally colored concrete masonry, pre- finished metal, stone, steel, glass, cast-in-place concrete, or other superior materials 22 approved at the discretion of the Administrator. 23 14. The applicant shall be required to submit a conceptual sign package which indicates the approximate location of all exterior building signage. Proposed signage shall be 24 compatible with the building's architecture and exterior finishes and contributes to the character of the development. The conceptual sign package shall be submitted to, and 25 approved by, the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 26 15. The applicant shall provide a lighting plan that adequately provides for public safety without casting excessive glare on adjacent properties; at the time of building permit SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 29 I review. Pedestrian scale and downlighting shall be used in all cases to assure safe 2 pedestrian and vehicular movement, unless alternative pedestrian scale lighting has been approved administratively or is specifically listed as exempt from provisions located in 3 RMC 4-4-075 Lighting, Exterior On-Site. 4 16. The applicant shall submit bicycle parking detail demonstrating compliance with the bicycle requirements outlined in RMC 4-4-080F.1 Lc for fixed structures. The bicycle 5 parking detail shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project 6 Manager prior to building permit approval. 17. The applicant shall submit a revised Drainage Report and Plan in compliance with Core 7 Requirement No. 1. Specifically, the applicant would be required to redesign the discharge of stormwater from the subject site to the natural discharge location to the 8 south. A detention vault or downstream capacity improvements would be required if the 9 downstream quantitative analysis reveals downstream capacity is not adequate and/or the Direct Discharge exemption criteria is not met. 10 18. The TIA shall be revised to include a detailed table for each pipeline project. The revised 11 TIA shall be submitted to the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. 19. The applicant shall revise the transportation study prior to engineering permit approval to 12 change the horizon year to the year that the project will be constructed (currently 13 proposed for 2016). 20. The applicant shall submit a revised TIA which includes a discussion of the AM peak 14 hour trips and/or a justification for the exclusion of the AM peak hour trips from the 15 analysis. The revised TIA shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plan Reviewer prior to engineering permit approval. 16 17 DATED this 161`day of April, 2015. 18 19 20 Emily Te 1 City of Re n 21 Hearing Examiner Pro Tem 22 23 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 24 RMC 4-8-080 provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(14) requires appeals of the hearing examiner's decision to 25 be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner's decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal 26 period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(13) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(9). A new fourteen (14) day SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 30 1 appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information 2 regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall — 7th floor, (425)430-6510. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 SITE PLAN, CRITICAL AREAS EXEMPTION, STREET MODIFICATION, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT- 31