Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2024 - HEX Decision - Camellia Apartments - LUA-23-0003611 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON RE: Camellia Court Apartments Conditional Use, Site Plan and Modifications LUA23-000361, ECF, CUP-H, SA-H, MOD ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street and habitable space modification approval for the construction of a 72 unit multi-family building at 99, 101 & 107 Williams Ave S. The applications are approved subject to conditions. Testimony A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. Exhibits Exhibits 1—29 as shown on the “Exhibits” list presented during the January 10, 2023 hearing were entered into the record during the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 1. Applicant. Roger H. Newell, Roger H Newell AIA, 1102 – 19th Ave E, Seattle WA 98112 2. Hearing. A virtual hearing was held on the applications on January 23, 2024 at 11 am in the City of Renton Council chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant requests site plan, conditional use permit and street and habitable space modification approval for the construction of a 72 unit multi-family building at 99, 101 & 107 Williams Ave S. Fifty-six studio units, 14 2-bedroom units and two (2) 3-bedroom units are proposed. All parking spaces are within on-site structured parking. Alley access is proposed. The total project area is 17,262 square feet (0.39 acre). The building will be 71 feet tall and the Ex. 4 elevations show six stories. The project involves a density of 186 dwelling units per acre. As identified in Conclusion of Law No. 1 below, the conditional use permit is required to authorize the proposed density. The habitable space modification is a modification to RMC 4-4-155C to include gross square footage areas of an attached dwelling unit to calculate habitable space. The modification will enable the Applicant to meet minimum habitable space requirements that apply to the proposed dwelling units. The street modification is a modification to RMC 4-6-060F.2 to the minor arterial street section classification for Williams Ave S. 4. Adequacy of Infrastructure/Public Services. The project will be served by adequate and appropriate infrastructure and public services. Infrastructure and public services are more directly addressed as follows: A. Water and Sewer Service. The project is located within the City’s water and sewer service areas. The Applicant will be extending water and sewer from existing mains to the proposal. B. Fire and Police. The City of Renton will provide police service and the Renton Regional Fire Authority will provide fire service. Police and Fire Prevention staff indicated that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development with the improvements and fire impact fees required of the project. C. Drainage. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate drainage facilities since its proposed stormwater controls have been found by City staff to conform to the City’s stormwater regulations. The proposal is subject to the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual. The Manual requires that the proposal not generate off-site flows that exceed pre-developed forested conditions of the project site. A preliminary drainage plan, Ex. 9, and a Technical Information Report, Exhibit 10, has been prepared by the Applicant and found to conform to the Manual for this level of review. As detailed in these reports, the Applicant has proposed to connect to the City of Renton’s storm drainage system within the abutting public alley right-of-way to the south. A Level 1 downstream analysis was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 performed as part of the TIR. The downstream drainage paths were field inspected on January 1, 2023, for existing drainage problems; the drainage area was evaluated by reviewing the Documented Drainage Complaints withing one (1) mile of the downstream flow paths which has not shown any complaints within the last 10 years. The project will result in a 0.125 cubic feet per second (cfs) increase in the 100-year peak flow. As the peak flow is less than a 0.15 cfs increase, no flow control facilities are required for the project. Additionally, the project is exempt from providing water quality treatment since less than 5,000 SF of new plus replaced pollution generating impervious surface is created. A new eight-inch (8”) storm drain is proposed for the abutting alley to the south. It would connect into an existing eight-inch (8”) public storm main in the abutting alley to the south. The existing main then flows east into Williams Ave S and connects to the eight- inch (8”) public storm main within the right-of-way of Williams Ave S. D. Parks/Open Space. The proposal provides for adequate parks and open space. The proposal is located within Design District A. Its open space requirements are largely dictated by District A open space standards. District A requires 50 square feet of open space per dwelling unit, which is a total of 3,600 square feet for the project. The floor and landscape plans detail open space and recreation areas of approximately 4,144 square feet. The ground floor amenities include a 1,217 square foot fitness center, a 1,217 square foot hospitality center and a 540 square foot tenant library/internet lounge totaling 2,974 square feet. The 1,170 square foot second floor open air terrace is shown to provide seating, gas BBQ, dining area, television, gas fireplace and landscaping. A Park Impact Fee is required for the future houses, payable during building permit review. The current Park Impact Fee is $2,222.84 per each new multi-family dwelling unit within a multi-family project of five (5) or more units, however the fee in effect at the time of building permit issuance would be assessed. E. Transportation and Circulation. The proposal is served by adequate and appropriate transportation facilities. A Traffic Impact Analysis is required when a project proposal would result in the generation of 20 new a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. A Traffic Study (Exhibit 14), dated March 2023, was prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. It indicates that the development is estimated to generate 142 new average weekday daily vehicular trips with 18 new trips occurring during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 16 new trips occurring during the weekday p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the project is not required to provide a full Traffic Impact Analysis. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 Vehicle access to the site is via the existing alley along the rear (western) façade. The proposal is built out over nearly the entirety of the site and therefor internal circulation to the site is limited. A recessed entry from the new 12-foot (12’) sidewalk would be provided. This, along with complying with the City’s parking design standards, is sufficient to provide safe and efficient internal circulation. City staff have also determined int the staff report that the proposed circulation system provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. The 12-foot (12’) wide sidewalk along Williams Ave S and recessed entry point into the building result in an enhanced pedestrian experience. Loading and delivery would occur in the parking garage accessed via the abutting public alley. The record does not identify if the loading/delivery areas will be separated from parking and pedestrian areas. F. Schools. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate school facilities. Kennydale Elementary, Dimmitt Middle School and Renton High School will serve the development. New students from the proposed development attending elementary and middle schools would be bussed to school; students attending the high school would be expected to walk. The stop for elementary school students is located at N 1st St and Williams Ave N, a distance of approximately 935 feet (935’). Students would walk north along Williams Ave S until the intersection with N 1st St. The stop for middle school student is located at Logan Ave S and S Tobin St, a distance of approximately 1,850 feet (1,850’). Students would walk south along Williams Ave S until S 2nd St then west to Logan Ave S then north to the intersection with S Tobin St. Routes for both the elementary and middle school stops are improved then entire length with sidewalks. High school students would have a distance of approximately 775 feet (775’) to get to the Renton High School grounds. Students would walk south on Williams Ave S then west along S 2nd St until they reached the high school. The entire length of travel is improved with sidewalks. A School Impact Fee, based on new dwelling units, will be required in order to mitigate the proposal’s potential impacts to the Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. Currently the fee is assessed at $4,257.00.00 per multi-family. G. Refuse and Recycling. The proposal complies with applicable refuse and recycling regulations and thus provides for adequate and appropriate facilities to address solid waste impacts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 RMC 4-4-090D1a requires a minimum of one and one-half (1-1/2) square feet per dwelling unit in multi-family residences shall be provided for recyclables deposit areas, except where the development is participating in a City-sponsored program in which individual recycling bins are used for curbside collection. A minimum of three (3) square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided for refuse deposit areas. A total minimum area of eighty (80) square feet shall be provided for refuse and recyclables deposit areas. With the 72 proposed dwelling units, a minimum of 108 square feet is required for recyclable deposit areas with a minimum of 216 square feet required for refuse deposit areas for a total area of 324 square feet required for refuse and recyclable deposit areas. Per the submitted floor plans (Exhibit 3) two (2) locations on the ground floor are provided for deposit areas. Each location is 189 square feet for a total of 378 square feet. The deposit areas are incorporated within the building along the western facade and are each externally accessed via an 11 -foot tall by 12-foot wide (11’x12’) roll up door from the abutting alley. H. Parking. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate parking because the proposed parking complies with the City’s parking standards. Parking regulations require that a minimum and maximum of one (1) parking space per attached dwelling unit within the CD zone be provided. Standard structured parking stall dimensions are 8 feet 4 inches by 15 feet, or 16 feet if stalls are designed at 45 degrees or greater, compact stall dimensions are 8 ½ feet by 16 feet. Seventy-two dwelling units are proposed which requires 72 parking stalls. The Applicant proposes structured parking within two (2) levels: one (1) below ground level and one (1) at ground level. The floor plans show 38 stalls in the below ground level parking area with 34 stalls in the ground level parking area. The ground level parking is split into two (2) separately accessed areas with 17 stalls in each area. Six (6) compact stalls, or 8.33 percent (8.33%) of the total amount of stalls, are provided. Four (4) accessible spaces are provided. Standard parking stalls vary in size from 16 feet deep by eight feet four inches wide (16’x8’4”) to 17 feet seven inches deep by eight feet four inches wide (17’x8’4”). Compact stalls are sized 16 feet deep by seven and a half feet wide (16’x7’6”). All stalls are designed at 90 degrees. Drive aisle widths are 24 feet (24’) with the ramp down to the lower parking level being 20 feet (20’) at a 15 percent (15%) slope. Both levels are accessed on the western façade from the abutting alley. I. Landscaping. The proposal provides for adequate and appropriate landscaping by conforming to the City’s landscaping standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 In the CD zone, the City’s applicable landscape regulations (RMC 4-4-070) are limited to street trees and landscaping in the right-of-way, parking lot landscaping, maintenance of landscaping. Minimum planting strip widths between the curb and sidewalk are established according to the street development standards of RMC 4-6-060. Street trees and, at a minimum, groundcover shall be planted within planting strips pursuant to the street standards, provided there shall be a minimum of one street tree planted per lot. In the City Center Community Planning Area, street trees in grates are included in the 12 - foot sidewalk width in-lieu of vegetated planting strips. Tree species and planting size shall be consistent with the City’s Approved Street Tree List. When a commercial zoned lot or use abuts a residential zone, a fifteen-foot (15') wide partially sight-obscuring landscaped visual barrier, or ten-foot (10') wide fully sight- obscuring landscaped visual barrier, is required along the common property line. The Applicant’s submitted landscape plan (Exhibit 13) provides for the preservation of one (1) existing street tree and planting four (4) new street trees in 8-foot by 4-foot (8’x4’) tree grates abutting the sidewalk curb. The landscape plan identifies the existing street tree to remain as a Calleryana Pear; the newly planted street trees are proposed to be four (4) Snowgoose Cherries, a small-maturing street tree listed in the City’s Approved Tree List & Spacing Guidelines. The Calleryana Pear is not an approved street tree. Spacing between trees is proposed to be between 29 feet (29’) and 32.5 feet (32.5’). As the project is located within the City Center Planning Area, the Applicant would omit the eight-foot (8’) landscaping strip and instead would provide tree grates within the twelve (12’) foot sidewalk width as was constructed with the Merrill Gardens frontage improvements to the south. A condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit revised landscape plans with the construction permit application showing newly planted street tree species chosen from the City of Renton Approved Tree List & Spacing Guidelines with tree grates complying with city specifications. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. J. Transit and Bicycle. The proposal complies with City bicycle parking requirements and thus provides for adequate bicycle facilities. Transit is also easily accessible. RMC 4-4-080F11 requires bicycle parking spaces at the rate of one-half (0.5) bicycle parking space per each attached dwelling unit. Seventy-two attached dwelling units are proposed; per the floor plans 48 wall mounted bike racks and 22 bike storage rooms are proposed within the structured parking. A minimum of 36 bicycle spaces are required; 70 are provided. However, it’s not clear if the spaces can be fully functional without impeding pedestrian or vehicular circulation. To ensure bicycle parking meets standards, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 a condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide revised drawings showing the location of provided bicycle stalls and identifying how the stalls will meet applicable standards in RMC 4-4-080F11. Access to the transit center located approximately one (1) block south and west on S 2nd St and Burnett Ave S is provided via public sidewalk. 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. On December 18, 2023 the City issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-significance (MDNS) for the project. Adequate infrastructure serves the site as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. Impacts are more specifically addressed as follows: A. Views. It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in any material obstruction of views. The proposal is similar scale and height to the adjoining Merrill Gardens buildings to the west and south of the project. As such, potential views of Lake Washington from adjacent properties would already be obstructed by Merrill Gardens. No obstruction of other existing views of natural features are anticipated. New views to Lake Washington, Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges, and Seattle and Bellevue skylines may be possible from the upper stories and roof top of the building addition. B. Compatibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding use. Adjacent property to the south and west is an assisted living facility of similar bulk and scale. North is a detached dwelling and east is a mix of detached and multi-family dwellings. With the tiered design outlined below and conditions addressing screening in conjunction with landscaping requirements, the proposal is found to be compatible with surrounding uses. The building design provides structural setbacks creating a tiered effect with a reduction in bulk from the ground floor to the second level then to the third through sixth levels rather than a monolithic box. Storefront glazing and weather protection provide a pedestrian environment and engagement superior to the existing development. Design District A standards assure aesthetic features that reduce massing, such as articulation on all facades at intervals of less than 40 feet (40’) via glazing, roof overhang, material changes and color changes. Modulation occurs on all facades at varying intervals of less than 40 feet (40’) ranging from a width of eight feet two inches (8’2”) to 19 feet two inches (19’2”). The proposal includes human scale elements such as large windows, sconce lighting, canopies and potted vegetation at the entrance. The base of the building is comprised of CMU and concrete, inset tiles and treated with canopies along pedestrian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 8 CAO VARIANCE - 8 areas. Architectural elements include entrance detailing, weather protection and a unique skylight above the entrance lobby. The Applicant did not provide sufficient details of roof or surface mounted equipment and/or screening identified for such equipment with the land use application. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for all roof top utility/mechanical equipment with the building permit application. The plan shall include detail sheets that provide cross section details and identify proposed rooftop screening that is integral and complementary to architecture of the buildings. Conditions of approval require the Applicant to submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes do not obstruct or displace pedestrian areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening measures consistent with the overall design of the development. C. Light, glare, noise and privacy. The proposal will not create any significant adverse light, noise or glare impacts and will not impact privacy. The staff report doesn’t address lighting impacts on surrounding properties, but rather only addresses that issue as it impacts safe pedestrian passage at the project site. A condition of approval requires conformance to RMC 4-4-075E, which prohibits light trespass onto adjoining properties and specifies light fixture design standards. The building design provides privacy and noise reduction as the residential dwelling units are stepped back and elevated from Williams Ave S and the abutting alleys. D. Critical Areas. The project site is located in a high seismic area and a critical aquifer area. The proposal is found to adequately avoid impacts to these critical areas since it conforms to the City’s critical area regulations as provided in further detail below. i. Seismic Hazard. RMC 4-3-050F2aii requires the Applicant to submit a geotechnical report for high seismic areas that establishes that the site can safely accommodate the proposal and that the proposal will not jeopardize other critical areas or destabilize adjoining properties. The Applicant has complied with RMC 4-3-050F2aii and for this reason there are no adverse impacts anticipated due to the presence of the seismic hazard area. The submitted geotechnical report states that liquefaction during a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) would result in a total calculated ground settlement in the order of up to four to six inches (4” – 6”). A recommendation to use mat foundations could reduce the settlement to two to four inches (2” – 4”) of settlement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 9 CAO VARIANCE - 9 Additional recommendations include using auger cast concrete piles because of potential caving conditions and/or significant groundwater, retaining walls backfilled on only one side be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and soldier pile walls to reduce potential for excessive caving and adverse impacts to adjacent streets, utilities and structures. The geotechnical report noted at Page 7 that in following its recommendations, by “preventing catastrophic settlement of the foundations, the safety of the occupants should be protected.” SEPA mitigation measures were included with the environmental threshold determination that the project comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and any updated reports and that the geotechnical engineer reviews the construction and building plans to verify the recommendations and specifications are consistent with the geotechnical report. The SEPA mitigation measures are included as recommended conditions of approval. ii. Aquifer Recharge. The COR mapping system has identified the site as being located in the Downtown Wellhead Protection Zone 1. The site’s proposed residential use is not indicative of a type of use that would potentially harm the City’s groundwater. no groundwater will be withdrawn, and no waste material will be discharged into the ground. If more than 100 cubic yards of fill are imported, a fill material source statement is required that is certified by a professional engineer or geologist licensed by the State of Washington identifying each source location of the fill. 6. Tree Retention. Beyond the City’s critical area regulations, the only regulations requiring protection of vegetation are the City’s tree retention standards. As conditioned, the proposal meets the City’s tree retention standards and thus is found to adequately protect and retain site trees. The City’s adopted Tree Retention and Land Clearing Regulations (4-4-130) require the retention of 30 percent of trees in a residential development. Tree credit requirements shall apply at a minimum rate of thirty (30) credits per net acre based on values for existing or new trees as provided in RMC 4 - 4-130H.1.b.v. The arborist (Exhibit 11) report identifies two (2) trees on the site: an English Holly and a Mountain Ash. Both are identified as being multi-stemmed trunks with the largest caliper being nine inches (9”) for the holly and 10 inches (10’) for the ash. RMC 4-11-200, Definitions T defines notes that any trees listed on the Complete King County Weed list shall not qualify as a tree. Both English Holly and Mountain Ash are listed as King County weeds of concern on the Complete King County Weed list and are therefore, not considered trees per the Renton Municipal Code. As such, no trees are required for retention. A minimum of 11 tree credits (0.37 acres x 30 tree credits per acre = 11.1 tree credits, rounded down to 11) are needed. Per the submitted landscape plan, 14 Oil-Seed Camelias are proposed within individual planters and placed in various locations on the second level terraces. The Oil -Seed Camelia is a Small Species Tree and is valued at 0.25 tree credits each for a total of two and three/fourths (2.75) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 10 CAO VARIANCE - 10 credits (11 tree credits x .025 tree credits = 2.75 credits). Per RMC 4-4-130H1f, Fee in Lieu, when the Administrator determines that it is infeasible to replace or supplement trees on the site, payment into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund may be approved in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The intent of tree credits and tree retention is for ground level long term tree planting/retention, not trees within planters. Trees in planters can be removed easily at some point in the future defeating the purpose of long-term tree placement. Because the CD zone allows for entire lot coverage, it is anticipated that ground level trees will not be installed and/or retained as it would be infeasible to meet tree planting/retention rates and meet permitted zoning allowances. As such, the fee-in-lieu is the appropriate method of meeting tree retention requirements. As such, a condition of approval that the Applicant make payment into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fund in the amount per required caliper inch to reach 11 tree credits and labor cost identified in the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Payment shall be made prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority The site plan and conditional use permit require hearing examiner review and final approval. The modification requests are subject to staff approval when reviewed separately, but are consolidated with hearing examiner review for this application. The site plan is subject to hearing examiner review because it involves a building more than four stories tall or 60 feet in height in the CD zone per RMC 4-9-200D2biv. A conditional use permit is required because the proposal involves a density between 150 and 200 dwelling units per acre in the CD zone per RMC 4-2-120B. RMC 4-4-155H authorizes the use of the modification process to habitable space requirements. RMC 4-8-080G classifies the street modification and minimum habitable space requests as a Type I application. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to be collectively processed under “the highest - number procedure.” The Type III review is the “highest-number procedure” for the permit applications identified above and therefore must be employed for the conditional use, site plan and street modification applications. As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the hearing examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Design District/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is zoned Commercial Office (CD), its comprehensive plan land use designation is Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) and the project site is located in Design District A. 3. Review Criteria/Adoption of Staff Findings and Conclusions of Street Modifications. Conditional use criteria are governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). Site Plan criteria are governed by RMC 4- 9-200.E.3. All applicable review criteria for the conditional use and site plan applications are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 11 CAO VARIANCE - 11 The criteria for the street and habitable space modification requests identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are governed by RMC 4-9-250.D.2. The findings and conclusions of Finding No. 23 and 24 of the staff report are adopted by this reference in full to conclude that all review criteria for the requested street modification are met. CONDITIONAL USE The Administrator or designee or the Hearing Examiner shall consider, as applicable, the following factors for all applications: RMC 4-9-030(C)(1): Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives, policies and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans, programs, maps or ordinances of the City of Renton. 4. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and development standards, including of those Design District A, as outlined in Findings No. 17-19 of the staff report, adopted by this reference as if set forth in full. RMC 4-9-030(C)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use. The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use. 5. For the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4 and 5, the proposal is compatible with surrounding uses, will be served by adequate infrastructure and will not create significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties. For these reasons the proposed location is suited for the proposed use. The detailed design standards of Design District A, as partially described in Finding of Fact 5B, break up the mass of the building thus preventing any semblance of overconcentration of large multi-family structures in the vicinity or at the project site. RMC 4-9-030(C)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned, there are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. RMC 4-9-030(C)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposed use is compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood. RMC 4-9-030(C)(5): Parking: Adequate parking is, or will be made, available. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4H, the site is served by adequate parking. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 12 CAO VARIANCE - 12 RMC 4-9-030(C)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area. 9. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for safe circulation and adequate traffic mitigation and facilities. RMC 4-9-030(C)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated. 10. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will not result in any adverse light, noise or glare impacts. RMC 4-9-030(C)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. The criterion is met. As shown in the landscaping plan, Ex. 13, all areas not paved are landscaped. SITE PLAN RMC 4-9-200(E)(3): Criteria: The Administrator or designee must find a proposed project to be in compliance with the following: a. Compliance and Consistency: Conformance with plans, policies, regulations and approvals, including: i. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan, its elements, goals, objectives, and policies, especially those of the applicable land use designation; the Community Design Element; and any applicable adopted Neighborhood Plan; ii. Applicable land use regulations; iii. Relevant Planned Action Ordinance and Development Agreements; and iv. Design Regulations: Intent and guidelines of the design regulations located in RMC 4-3-100. 12. As concluded in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the proposal is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan, development regulations and design standards. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(b): Off-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses, including: i. Structures: Restricting overscale structures and overconcentration of development on a particular portion of the site; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 13 CAO VARIANCE - 13 ii. Circulation: Providing desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties; iii. Loading and Storage Areas: Locating, designing and screening storage areas, utilities, rooftop equipment, loading areas, and refuse and recyclables to minimize views from surrounding properties; iv. Views: Recognizing the public benefit and desirability of maintaining visual accessibility to attractive natural features; v. Landscaping: Using landscaping to provide transitions between development and surrounding properties to reduce noise and glare, maintain privacy, and generally enhance the appearance of the project; and vi. Lighting: Designing and/or placing exterior lighting and glazing in order to avoid excessive brightness or glare to adjacent properties and streets. 13. As conditioned, the criteria quoted above are met. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4E, the proposal provides for desirable transitions and linkages between uses, streets, walkways and adjacent properties. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4G, the proposal complies with the City’s refuse and recycling standards. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A, the proposal will not adversely affect any views. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4I, the proposal is consistent with the City’s landscaping standards. The proposal will not create any significant light impacts, including excessive brightness or glare, for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. A condition of approval requires screening of rooftop equipment and utilities. The loading and delivery area will be in the structured parking area and thus be screened from outside view. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(c): On-Site Impacts: Mitigation of impacts to the site, including: i. Structure Placement: Provisions for privacy and noise reduction by building placement, spacing and orientation; ii. Structure Scale: Consideration of the scale of proposed structures in relation to natural characteristics, views and vistas, site amenities, sunlight, prevailing winds, and pedestrian and vehicle needs; iii. Natural Features: Protection of the natural landscape by retaining existing vegetation and soils, using topography to reduce undue cutting and filling, and limiting impervious surfaces; and iv. Landscaping: Use of landscaping to soften the appearance of parking areas, to provide shade and privacy where needed, to define and enhance open spaces, and generally to enhance the appearance of the project. Landscaping also includes the design and protection of planting areas so that they are less susceptible to damage from vehicles or pedestrian movements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 14 CAO VARIANCE - 14 14. The criteria quoted above are met. Privacy impacts are adequately addressed as identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. Due to compliance with the City’s critical areas ordinance, there are no natural features adversely affected by the proposal. The scale of the structure is adequately mitigated through the extensive design standards of Design District A, as partially addressed in Finding of Fact No. 5B and discussed at length in the staff report. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d): Access and Circulation: Safe and efficient access and circulation for all users, including: i. Location and Consolidation: Providing access points on side streets or frontage streets rather than directly onto arterial streets and consolidation of ingress and egress points on the site and, when feasible, with adjacent properties; ii. Internal Circulation: Promoting safety and efficiency of the internal circulation system, including the location, design and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian access points, drives, parking, turnarounds, walkways, bikeways, and emergency access ways; iii. Loading and Delivery: Separating loading and delivery areas from parking and pedestrian areas; iv. Transit and Bicycles: Providing transit, carpools and bicycle facilities and access; and v. Pedestrians: Providing safe and attractive pedestrian connections between parking areas, buildings, public sidewalks and adjacent properties. 15. The proposal provides for safe and efficient access and vehicular and pedestrian circulation as required by the criterion above for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 4E. Transit and bicycle facilities are available as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4J. It’s unclear from the record whether the loading and delivery area will be separated from the parking and pedestrian areas. A condition of approval imposes this latter requirement. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(e): Open Space: Incorporating open spaces to serve as distinctive project focal points and to provide adequate areas for passive and active recreation by the occupants/users of the site. 16. The proposal provides for adequate open space as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4D. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(f): Views and Public Access: When possible, providing view corridors to shorelines and Mt. Rainier, and incorporating public access to shorelines. 17. There are no view corridors to shorelines or Mt. Rainier affected by the proposal as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5A. The proposal also does not include any shorelines and is in no position to provide public access to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 15 CAO VARIANCE - 15 RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(g): Natural Systems: Arranging project elements to protect existing natural systems where applicable. 18. The City’s critical area regulations identify and adequately protect all natural systems of significance. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5D, the project protects all affected critical areas as required by the critical area regulations. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(h): Services and Infrastructure: Making available public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use. 19. The project is served by adequate services and facilities as determined in Finding of Fact No. 4. RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(i): Phasing: Including a detailed sequencing plan with development phases and estimated time frames, for phased projects. 20. There is no phasing plan proposed DECISION The site plan, conditional use, and two street modification requests meet all applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law of this decision and are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated, dated December 18, 2023. 1. The project shall comply with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, prepared by Geotech Consultants, dated May 24, 2022, and any updated report(s) associated with the building and construction permits to ensure compliance with the intent of the initial reports. 2. The Applicant’s geotechnical engineer shall review the project’s construction and building permit plans to verify compliance with the geotechnical reports. The geotechnical engineer shall submit a sealed letter stating that they reviewed the construction and building permits and in their opinion the plans and specifications meet the intent of the reports. 3. The Applicant shall complete an archaeological survey by a qualified professional on the site prior to ground disturbing activities and an Inadvertent Discoveries Plan prepared by a qualified professional. A report identifying the results and any needed next steps shall be submitted with the Inadvertent Discoveries Plan at the time of the civil construction permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to permit issuance. Ground disturbing activities include but are not limited to geotechnical testing, concrete removal, utility removal and replacement, and building excavation. Notice shall be provided to Concerned Tribes to have a tribal monitor on-site if archaeological work or monitoring is performed. 2. The Applicant shall submit revised building designs with the building permit application showing a 12-foot (12’) finished floor – to- ceiling height for the ground floor residential amenity and lobby spaces. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 16 CAO VARIANCE - 16 3. The Applicant shall complete a lot line adjustment to eliminate the interior lot lines. The adjustment shall be recorded prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. 4. The Applicant shall submit revised landscape plans with the construction permit application showing newly planted street tree species chosen from the City of Renton Approved Tree List & Spacing Guidelines with tree grates complying with city specifications. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to construction permit issuance. 5. The Applicant shall make payment into the City’s Urban Forestry Program fun in an amount of money approximating the current market value of the replacement trees and the labor to install them. The City shall determine the value of replacement trees. Payment shall be made prior to temporary certificate of occupancy. 6. The Applicant shall submit a separate detailed plan set identifying the location and screening provided for all surface and roof top utility/mechanical equipment with the building permit application. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 7. The Applicant shall submit a surface mounted utility plan that includes cross-section details with the civil construction permit application. The Applicant shall work with franchise utilities to ensure, as practical, utility boxes do not obstruct or displace pedestrian areas. The plan shall provide and identify screening measures consistent with the overall design of the development. The surface mounted utility plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to civil construction permit approval. 8. The Applicant shall provide revised drawings showing the location of provided bicycle stalls and identifying how the stalls will meet applicable standards in RMC 4 -4-080F11. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 9. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plan drawings identifying how each unit meets the storage standards of RMC 4-4-155 with the building permit application. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 10. The Applicant shall submit revised floor plan drawings identifying how each unit is meeting the kitchen standards of RMC 4-4-155 with the building permit application. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 11. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings showing the southern façade at the ground floor level with similar façade treatments as the front façade, such as glazing and sconce lighting, or as determined by the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of building permit application. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 12. The Applicant shall submit material samples of the ground floor exterior cladding with the building permit application. The materials shall be brick or material equivalent. The size of the brick units shall be the size and scale of typical bricks, such as the neighboring Merrill Gardens building addition to the south or as otherwise determined by the Current Planning Project Manager. The material shall be approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 17 CAO VARIANCE - 17 13. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings which include enhancement techniques such as texturing, reveals and/or coloring with a concrete coating or admixture on the western and northern facades. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 14. The Applicant shall maintain visual accessibility along the ground level during typical business and daytime hours. Between the hours of 8 A.M. and 7 P.M. storefront windows shall not be covered with blinds or other visual obstructions. 15. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations with the building permit application which provides pedestrian scale lighting through sconces on the building façade at the entrance with down lighting provided within the recessed area and from the associated entrance awning. The additional lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 16. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations with the building permit application that provides additional sconce lighting along the southern façade at intervals between the conditioned windows. The additional lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 17. The Applicant shall submit revised elevations with the building permit application that provides additional downlighting within the entirety of the front façade awnings. The additional lighting shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 18. The Applicant shall provide revised landscaping plans with the building permit application that provides native vegetation to the greatest extent possible and additional vegetation beyond what is currently proposed at the second level on the eastern and southern façade. Vegetation shall be visible to the public through visibility means such as plant height, horizontally climbing plants along the façade, hanging vegetation, and/or other options as proposed by the Applicant. Native vegetation shall be used to the greatest extent possible. A narrative shall be provided from a Washington licensed landscape architect identifying why native vegetation could not be used in specific instances, why vegetation has been chosen for the specific area and what measures need to be incorporated to ensure the long-term health and survival of the landscaping. An updated arborist report shall identify measures needed to ensure the long -term health and viability for the planted trees. Plans shall identify how vegetation will be irrigated. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit approval. 19. The Applicant shall submit revised drawings with the building permit application which shows all dwelling units with a minimum habitable space area calculated using the habitable space definition in RMC 4-4-155C plus the area of a second bathroom. Additionally, the credit for the portions of square footage for utility space and storage space that is greater than the minimum required may also be included in the habitable space calculation. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to building permit issuance. 20. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Current Planning Project Manager that proposed lighting conforms to the requirements of RMC 4-4-075E. The Manager may require a lighting plan if necessary to make this determination. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE, SITE PLAN and MOD- 18 CAO VARIANCE - 18 21. If not done so already, the loading and delivery areas shall be separated from parking and pedestrian areas as required by RMC 4-9-200(E)(3)(d)(iii). DATED this 6th day of February, 2024. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices As consolidated, RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14 -day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 10 Appendix A January 23, 2024 Hearing Transcript Camellia Court Apartments -- LUA23-000361, ECF, CUP-H, SA-H, MOD Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City of Renton Community and Economic Development Department should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:00): Zoom. Message recording. There we go. Okay, for the record, it's January 23rd, 2024. I'm Phil Berg's, hearing examiner for the City of Renton. We have an application today for, and let me bring up my staff report for a hearing examiner, conditional use permit site plan review, a modification of street standards and a modification to attached dwelling unit minimum standards. So the hearing format is, we'll start off with the presentation from staff and who's going to be our staff person on this one today? Speaker 2 (00:34): That'd be me today, Andrew. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:36): Oh, okay. Alright. So Andrew will give us an overview of the project once he's done, then we'll move on to applicants and then we'll move on to public comment. The reason for our hearing today, if anybody is here for that and if you're a member of the public and want to say something, we'll make sure to tell you how you can get involved. Once we get to that part of the hearing. Once we're done with the public comments, we'll go back to Mr. Van Gordon to give us any rebuttal evidence he thinks is necessary, answer questions that were raised. Then applicant gets final word and I get 10 business days to issue a final decision by state law. I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's put in the record and the record is composed of the testimony today as well as exhibits that are admitted into the record. (01:20): And I'm going to, oops, Jennifer. Oh, I guess we've got Mr. Cisneros sharing her screen to show us what those exhibits are. And actually that's a little too small for me to read. Let me pull up the staff report so I can summarize it real quick. So we have the staff report, we have neighborhood meeting documents, a public comment letter from the department of our archeology environmental review, which is where the environmental impact statement comes from if required. And it wasn't for this project. Utilities plan, project overview, design district checklist, street standard modification, justification, pre-application staff comments and modification or attached dwelling units, modification justification. Jenny, do you have exhibits one through 16 that are broken out? Pardon? Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 10 Speaker 3 (02:06): One through 16 and also 17 through 26. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:10): Yeah, I mean, well, do you have one through 16? Because I don't have what the actual list is for 1 3 6. It's Speaker 3 (02:15): Right here. Yeah. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:17): Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I was looking at my staff report there. Okay. Alright. Yeah. And so one through 16, you can see there on the screen as well as the environmental review committee report. That's the one that determines whether an environmental impact statement is necessary or what mitigation is necessary to avoid such a statement. Site plan, floor plans, elevations, density worksheet, geotech reports, drainage reports, arbors reports, public comment from the Duwamish tribe, landscaping traffic study concurrency, which is a determination that it meets the city's congestion standards and advisory notes from staff. So any objections over entry of all these documents, exhibits one through 26. If anyone objects, just raise the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen or say I object. Okay. Hearing and seeing no objections. And we'll admit exhibits. Oh, I'm sorry. Exhibits one through. Yeah, that's right. 26th there. Speaker 3 (03:07): And we also like to add these to the record as well, Mr. Hearing seminar. Examiner Olbrechts: (03:11): Okay. We have the staff PowerPoint, the City of Renton maps available at the website, which would be of the project site, and then dealing with critical areas that might be mapped for that area, that kind of thing. And then the Google Earth, which is aerial maps of the project vicinity as well. Any objections over 27 through 29? Alright, hearing none there. Those are admitted as well. Okay. Mr. Van Gordon, let me swear in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 2 (03:38): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (03:38): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 2 (03:40): Alright, let me share my screen here with the presentation. Okay. Let me know when you can see my screen. Examiner Olbrechts: (03:53): Yeah. Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 10 Speaker 2 (03:54): Okay. It looks like it's up. All right. So, okay. Just a minute here. Come on. Oops, see here. Sorry. Okay, so my name's Andrew Van Gordon. I'm an associate planner with the city of Renton. I'm be making the presentation on the Camelia Court apartments. So the applicant is requesting a hearing examiner conditional use permit hearing examiner site plan review, a MOD to street standards and a mod to attached dwelling unit minimum standards for the benefit of a 72 unit apartment complex on 99 1 0 1 and 1 0 7 Williams Ave South. The project site is zoned CD within the Urban Design District A, and the site is currently developed with two existing single family residences and a one story commercial building. All of those are proposed to be removed. So like I said, there's 72 total units proposed. The breakdown would be 56 studio units, 14 two bedroom units and two three bedroom units. There would also be 72 parking stalls provided via a onsite structured parking. It would have two levels, one below ground level and one at ground level. There would be three garage doors for access on the west facade of the project accessing from the existing alley right of way. One of those garage doors would be to the below ground level, below ground level parking area. And the other two would be to the at ground level. And there's about 30, I believe it's 36 units, excuse me, stalls on each level. (05:57): So yeah, so there was a neighborhood meeting that was held on January 18th, 2023. There were no members of the public. There was a 14 day public comment period from November 9th to November 23rd, 2023. We did not receive comments from the general public, but we did receive comments from the Duwamish tribe regarding cultural resources and incorporating native vegetation into the project. And then a second from DAP after the environmental determination went out requesting review of the archeological survey report. So as I just said, there was a determination of non-significant mitigated issued by the city's environmental Review Committee on December 18th, 2023. It had three mitigation measures and in short, they were to comply with recommendations of the geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should review the construction building permits to verify compliance with those recommendations. And prior to ground disturbance completing an archeological survey on the site, there were no appeals were filed. (07:01): So the applicant is proposing frontage improvements to include dedication, curb and gutter tree grates and a 12 foot sidewalk along Williams F South. That is not to the minor arterial standards. They are asking for a modification to those from those three standards, but I'll speak to that in a little bit. There would also be dedication from the existing Western, a budding alley right of way, but there would not be any from the abutting southern alleyway that was improvements on that alleyway were completed with the Mari Gardens project to the south. The project is proposing to extend out to the property lines on all facades except for the Western facade, which is about a foot away from the property line. So plantings and landscaping have been proposed via incorporation into the building design. All the plantings are proposed to be potted and they can be found at the front entrance and along the second level, including the terraces and the outdoor amenity space for the residents. And the plantings would include grasses, trees and trees and shrubs. (08:12): So the proposal is consistent with relevant comprehensive plan land use policies overall and would be compliant with all relevant zoning and design regulations if all conditions of approval are complied with. That is with the caveat that there is the conditional use permit and the two modification requests. The conditional use permit has been applied for to increase density above 150 dwelling units per acre. There are also safe walking routes to the school bus stops for any students who may reside in the future. Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 10 Residences, police and fire have indicated that there are sufficient resources. Students would attend Kendale Elementary, ditt Middle School in Renton High School, and water and sewer service would be provided by the city of Renton and there would be water and sewer improvements required. (09:03): The applicants also submitted a technical information report prepared by Dr. Strong Consulting engineers. The project is required to comply with the 2022 City of Renton Surface water Design manual, and they are proposing a stormwater connection into the existing storm main in the alley right of way, abutting to the south with fire and water connections from William Map South, and a sewer connection on the Western facade into the Western alley to an existing sewer Maine. So a conditional use permit has been applied for within the CD zone. The maximum density is 150 dwelling units per acre. An applicant can increase that up to 200 through review and approval of a conditional use permit. So the applicant has proposed 72 dwelling units, which works out to rounding up 186 dwelling units per acre. (09:59): The request is compatible with the comprehensive plan. It promotes maximization of land use efficiency as more dwelling units will be placed in the same project site. It also supports transit use with a higher concentration of potential users and is more cost effective for public investment infrastructure and services with a denser, more compact project, approximately 23%. So that'd be about 16 units that wouldn't be about, that would be 16 units are tenanted for more than two members. That was, as I stated earlier, that's 14 two bedrooms and two three bedrooms. All units would receive light and air as they abut the exterior walls. And there are 72 parking stalls proposed, which is the minimum and maximum required for attached joint units in the CD zone, which is one stall per unit. Oops. And so staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as proposed. So the first modification requested is to street standards. (10:59): Williams F South is a minor arterial, which has a minimum width of 91 feet. So half street improvements as taken from the right of way center line would be required. This would include 54 feet of paved roads. So 27 feet on either side of the center line, half foot curb, eight foot planting strip, and eight foot sidewalk street trees and storm drainage of improvements on either side. The current right of way width four Williams F South is measured using the King county's assessor's map is 60 feet with approximately 40 feet of paving. So to meet those minor arterial standards, the dedication of approximately 15 and a half feet would be required. So the applicant is proposing a modification for a modified minor arterial with a proposed right of way with a 65 feet, which would include two 12 foot travel lanes, two eight foot parking lanes with 12 foot sidewalks and a half foot curb in street trees in grates on either side. (12:03): So it is compatible with the comprehensive plan. It reduces the transportation impact of growth, provides compact, more pedestrian oriented streetscape efficient land use is promoted by allowing for space that would normally be dedicated to RightWay to instead be incorporated into residential development. And it'll provide a visual continuity and identity by continuing the front. Improvements from male gardens project to the south, which is the same frontage improvements. The proposed modification also maintains the street's vehicle capacity while improving the sidewalk to meet with design and street standards with lining up there. So it also meets objectives of safety function and staff didn't identify adverse impacts. The city of Renton transportation department has determined that the existing curb to curb with a sufficient and a modified minor arterial street standard to the standards that the applicant is requesting are acceptable this area. So it's determined that this modified minor arterial street such as suitable for this portion in this area of William AV South. Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 10 (13:15): Like I stated earlier, by granting the modification, the curb line and frontage improvements approved through the male gardens project to the south are maintained. And by maintaining the existing roadway within curb alignment, inconvenient and or potentially unsafe transition between the two projects is avoided. Also conforms to the intent and purposes, the intent of a minor arterial to ride roadways for high capacity, higher speed main thoroughfare, limited main, excess main thoroughfares. The existing character of Williams Ave South in this area is more of a neighborhood street. There are existing residential uses on both sides of the street and the modification permits frontage improvements to be installed in the manner that is practical and safer users. Finally, it can be shown to be justified and required it's impractical to widen the existing bay roadway. For this particular frontage of property, it's justifiable to improve the sidewalk and provide street trees and a continuation of the improvements started with the project. Then staff recommends approval of the modification as proposed. (14:36): Excuse me. The next modification is modification to attach a dwelling unit. Standards within the attached units section in RMC four dash four dash 55 habitable space is defined as a room or a space and a structure used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. So like your bedrooms, your kitchens, your living rooms, et cetera. Bathing facilities, toilet facilities, closets, halls, storage, utility space. Similar areas are not considered habitable. And so the applicant applicant's request is to use the growth square footage of each unit, each attached willing unit to calculate the habitable space. So sad find that the request was compatible with the comprehensive plan. It's an efficient use of space through more compact development and enhances the livability of units through additional bedrooms, bathrooms, utility space. However, staff did not find that it was the minimal necessary. The applicant contends amenity spaces are needed to make the units more desirable and easier to rent. (15:48): And without this modification, the units would need to increase in size to meet both habitable space requirements and the desired amenity space, which would reduce the density in the building. But the applicant has provided comparison floor plans showing the gross square footage versus the non- conforming plan. And in order to have the same size unit, if the gross square footage was used, it would reduce in size of the defined habitable space. However, staff does find that a second bathroom, a larger utility space and additional storage areas provided benefit, excuse me, a benefit to residents and does enhance the livability of the unit. So for example, studios would be able to do laundry in the unit because they have a utility space for a washer and dryer, couples, roommates, or families with an adolescent. And her teen child can have a higher quality of life with a second bathroom and storage space. So what staff recommends as a condition of approval is that the minimum habitable space areas be calculated using the definition found in RMC four dash four dash 1 55 C plus the area of a second bathroom. And credit for portions of square footage for utility space and storage space that is greater than the minimum required can also be included. (17:17): Staff concurs that the modification will meet the second, third, and fourth criteria. Oops, jumped ahead there. Sorry about that. Lemme get back down to where I am. Here. The modification will provide a higher quality of life, which enhances the function of the dwelling unit and provides an appealing set of amenities for potential tenants. The applicant has stated that the overall exterior shell of the building wouldn't change if the modification isn't approved. What would happen is that there would be fewer units as the size of each unit would need to be increased for that amenity space plus to meet habitable Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 10 space minimum spacing requirements. But either way, all other codes such as building stormwater code are still going to be required to be met. (18:08): Finally, staff did not agree with the applicant's justification that the request is justified and required for the use. Staff did find that including a second bathroom, larger utility space and additional storage space and above and beyond the minimum does provide a benefit to residents and enhances the livability of the unit. It also increases the range of potential tenants than otherwise would be expected. And like I said before, for example, families and couples with roommates would be more willing to rent a multi bedroom unit with a second bathroom and more utility storage space. So rolling these spaces into the habitable space requirements will ensure that inhabitants have space and amenities to support the defined habitable area of the unit. And so staff recommends approval with the recommended condition of approval. So in conclusion, staff recommends approval of the CLIA court departments project subject to the 19 conditions of approval. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:05): Same. Speaker 2 (19:05): Any questions? Yeah, Examiner Olbrechts: (19:07): No. Well, I do have to say I lost my internet connection, which is kind of ironic actually in Renton city hall using your internet right now. So I don't know. I dunno why my connection got broken, but you kept going. So are you working from home today, Mr. Van Gordon? Is that why maybe or Speaker 2 (19:24): Yes. Yeah. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:25): Oh, okay. Okay. That could be the problem then. And that's fine. I missed your discussion about the attached dwelling unit modification. You were just talking about some of the, well, I think you were talking about utility storage and why staff considers that to be a benefit. One question I had about that though, and maybe you explained this a little further when you got further into it, and I will be able to get a recording of this and review it after the fact, but why does habitable habitable space matter? I think you mentioned that there's some minimum habitable space requirements. Is that the only factor that's involved or what other benefits are there to the applicant for having more habitable space? Speaker 2 (20:09): In terms of from the applicant's perspective or just from the, yeah, from applicant's applicant's perspective. Would benefit of having accounting of the gross square footage would be that they wouldn't have to increase the size of the units, which would reduce their costs. It would be easier to rent out those units because this amenity space is something that is desired by potential residents. Examiner Olbrechts: (20:41): Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 10 Yeah, no, I guess from the standpoint of city regulations, why does habitable space matter? Is it just because there's a minimum habitable space requirement? Is that what it's play here? Speaker 2 (20:56): Yeah, there is a minimal habitable space. Oh my gosh, I've got so many windows open here, sorry. There is a minimal habitable space requirement. The intent is to ensure that there is, that the units are livable and that they provide amenities for residents. And what the city is trying to avoid is getting these kind of postage stamp, tiny, tiny units getting a variety of sizes, making sure that there are, I can't think of the word right off the top of my head, but appropriate amounts of space for cooking, living, sleeping, without it being taken up by things like hallways or just postage stamp style residential units. Examiner Olbrechts: (21:46): Is that a new requirement or? I haven't seen it in It's okay. Speaker 2 (21:51): The first, as far as I'm aware, this is the first project moving forward with this. Examiner Olbrechts: (21:55): Oh, okay. Got it. Got it. Great. Alright, thanks Mr. Van Gordon, appreciate your comments. Alright, let's move on to applicants at this point. Anyone want to speak on behalf of the applicant? Nope. Mr. Thompson, it looks like you'll have to unmute yourself though. Speaker 4 (22:10): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (22:11): Lemme swear in Mr. Thompson, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 4 (22:17): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (22:17): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 4 (22:20): Yes, so I'm the project architect. Roger Newell is the architect of record sitting next to me. Although Renton has sort of helped us out by lessening the requirement for the habit space base. For studios, it's 400 square feet and for a two bedroom apartment it's 800 square feet. Their requirement does sort of conflict with the Washington State building Code amendments. Section 1207 0.4 for an efficiency dwelling unit requires four items that a unit shall not have a living room of less than 190 square feet, which our studio apartments do meet, which is our smallest unit. The state code also requires a separate closet, a kitchen prep area, and also a separate bathroom. So the Renton requirements for the habitable space does not allow you to provide closet space, hallways or the bathroom areas as well. And so again, Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 10 they have come back and provided some of these areas as being acceptable, but it still will have potentially significant impact on our studio apartment layouts, which is the most significant number of apartments that we have in this project. Examiner Olbrechts: (24:16): Okay. Anything else from the applicants or is that your primary concern? Speaker 5 (24:24): Increases of the costs, as they mentioned, Speaker 4 (24:28): Yeah, no increases the size of the units and the cost and it has the potential for reducing the number of units on the project. We're still trying to work through that in terms of the back and forth was written. Examiner Olbrechts: (24:44): Okay. Yeah, and as you heard, this will be a first for me too. It looks like the first application or at least the first contested one. So it'll be interesting to dig into that issue. So, well, let's move on to public comments at this point. And Mr. Cisneros, you said we had maybe one person that wanted to participate. If you want to participate at this point, click on the virtual hand at the bottom of your screen it says raise hand or if you know how to unmute yourself and say, I'd like to say something at this point, I don't see any takers out there. What I will say is if someone out there is trying to participate, doesn't know how, due to some technical problems or whatever, go ahead and send over an email to Ms. Ciro. She's got her email address right behind her head there. Just do it by 5:00 PM tomorrow and identify, just put in the email the reason why you weren't able to say something earlier and then we'll let you speak and if something does come and I'll give the staff and the applicant a chance to respond to that. So. Alright, thanks Mr. Cisneros. Appreciate you Speaker 3 (25:45): Mr. Examiner. We do have Nancy Sackman here that does have her hand up, would like to Examiner Olbrechts: (25:49): Speak. Okay, let's get her in there. Okay. Ms. Sackman, are you there? Speaker 6 (25:54): Hi, I'm here. Can you hear me? Examiner Olbrechts: (25:56): Yeah. Let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear affirm tell the truth and nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 6 (26:02): Correct? Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:03): Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 10 Okay. And your last name for the record is spelled S-A-C-K-M-A-N, is that correct? Speaker 6 (26:07): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:08): Okay, great. Go ahead. Speaker 6 (26:10): So I am just attending to ensure that our comment was heard regarding cultural resources. So that's the reason for me being here. Examiner Olbrechts: (26:24): Oh, okay. Thank you. You said to assure who was heard, I didn't hear who you identified there Speaker 6 (26:32): That the Duwamish tribes, the Examiner Olbrechts: (26:34): Ish tribe. Okay. Alright. Speaker 6 (26:36): Her letter was received. Oh, Examiner Olbrechts: (26:38): Definitely. That's in the record. Okay, thanks. And I believe Mr. Van Gordon, you can address how that's been addressed. I believe it's inadvertent discovery plan, that kind of thing. But once we're done with public comments, let's see, any other takers on that? Alright, let's move back to Mr. Van Gordon then. And yeah, I don't recall. What was the, I mean, I think staff had added a condition for the cultural resources, right? What's being required of this project by Speaker 2 (27:06): Recommended that there would be an archeological study completed on the site prior to ground disturbance and that an inadvertent discovery be provided, document be provided as well. Yeah. And that was conditioned through the Examiner Olbrechts: (27:19): Review. Okay. Which means, yeah, I noticed DHP was also interested in that they usually don't comment on something of that nature so that, yeah, it shows that there's some significance to the site. Definitely. So, okay. And applicants, any final word, don't have to say anything, but in case something else popped in your mind, it doesn't look like they're takers there. So I'll go ahead and close the hearing. And yeah, as I mentioned, the minimum habitable space requirement is kind of a new issue and I don't have the authority to override that to any extent. But if the arguments, if the building code does conflict with the standards of the city, that helps me interpret it though. And if I can interpret it in a manner that's Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 10 consistent with both building code and the city's requirements, that's always a good thing. Although I am aware that the city can be more restrictive than the building code, there's nothing wrong with that. But anyway, that's something I'll have to look at and figure out. So I'll have a transcript made of the proceeding to make sure I understand all the comments that were made and explain my decision in some detail, especially the habitable space issue. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the hearing. Thank you all for participating and have a great rest of the day. Bye.